596»

The New Sex Math: Probabilities and Opportunities

In a recent post I asked why difficult, demanding women who put out get boyfriends. (Hint: the qualifier at the end is the kicker.) Several guys commented that it’s because bitches and sluts try harder. They’re making their interest known, signaling their availability, driving down the risk of rejection for the male. They also consider them more feminine and attractive. But why? The most attractive women don’t have to be sluts. Or do they? An attractive but moody woman who’s DTF represents an easy and rewarding target compared to the shy, lovely girl in your chemistry class. Apparently, this drives male behavior – especially in college.

I. The Eligible Bachelor Paradox

It turns out that signaling availability, and possibly even acting as the aggressor, may be a valid strategy throughout one’s dating career. Mark Gimein wrote The Eligible Bachelor Paradox, exploring how game theory might explain why dinner parties among 30-somethings always seem to have a shortage of available, appealing men.

The shortage—or—more exactly, the perception of a shortage—becomes evident as you hit your late 20s and more acute as you wander into the 30s. Some men explain their social fortune by believing they’ve become more attractive with age; many women prefer the far likelier explanation that male faults have become easier to overlook.

The problem of the eligible bachelor is one of the great riddles of social life. Shouldn’t there be about as many highly eligible and appealing men as there are attractive, eligible women?

Gimein says no, and offers an explanation via game theory. In any auction, there will be “strong bidders” and “weak bidders.” Strong bidders are very confident of their ability to win the auction. However, weak bidders understand they can be outbid and often bid more aggressively, while the strong bidders hold out for a great deal. Empirical studies of auctions show that weak bidders often win. In dating, a strong bidder is a woman who feels very confident of her ability to attract men, while a weak bidder knows that she is less attractive and faces stiff competition.

You can see how this works intuitively if you just consider that with a lot at stake in getting it right in one shot, it’s the women who are confident that they are holding a strong hand who are likely to hold out and wait for the perfect prospect.

It’s all about the checklist! Meanwhile, women holding a weaker hand make moves.

Where have all the most appealing men gone? Married young, most of them—and sometimes to women whose most salient characteristic was not their beauty, or passion, or intellect, but their decisiveness.

Grimein does close with a very important caveat:

Game theory deals with how best to win the prize, but it works only when you can decide what’s worth winning.

As an interesting aside, this calls into question the constant refrain that women who are less attractive than their hookups can get them for sex but not for commitment. That makes sense intuitively, but it appears that down the road, at least some men marry the women who bid aggressively. Some of those men may not be worth winning, but some of them are bound to be. In fact, men who are attractive but not socially dominant in their sphere may be quickest to jump at the chance to secure a woman – even if she is not as attractive as he is. The weak bidders are snatching up the good men!

II. The Carol Syndrome

The Eligible Bachelor Paradox dovetails nicely with another game theory concept that’s been applied to dating – dubbed The Carol Syndrome, named for the author’s beautiful friend Carol. Carol doesn’t get asked out much, and she believes that she frightens men away, but she doesn’t understand why. Surely some men are willing to approach her! It turns out that game theory can explain, at least theoretically why no men do.

Let’s say that Carol is sitting in Starbucks. Cute Guy sees her and feels attraction – he would love to get her number. He figures there are three potential outcomes, listed in order of preference:

1. Approach Carol and get her number. Win!

2. Forget it and go back to texting. Meh.

3. Approach Carol and get rejected. Loser!

While Cute Guy is deciding what to do, he notices other guys in Starbucks, several of whom also have noticed Carol and are also stealing glances at her. He is a STEM guy, so he calculates his odds of success with each approach. Obviously, his chance of success with option 2 is zero. Option 1 is much more likely if he’s the only guy who approaches Carol, and Option 3 is probable if several guys approach Carol. He’d really rather not deal with the rejection. But she is gorgeous! How to know what other guys will do?

Game theory says that the better looking Carol is, the more guys will want to approach her, and the more likely that any one of them will be rejected. Since all the guys act independently, the odds are highest that each of them will conclude that it is not a good idea to approach Carol. The more admiring men there are in Starbucks, the lower Carol’s chances of getting approached at all. (Math nerds can find the equation here.)

The article concludes:

“Carol’s perception that she scares men away is not a delusion after all. According to the mathematics above, she may be justified in thinking that guys stay away from her. It is not a matter of bad luck but a collateral effect of interactive rationality. A paradoxical consequence is that Carol’s attractiveness acts as a repellent. This surprising phenomenon — which we call the Carol syndrome —is a by-product of psychological social interaction.”

Men like to say that beautiful women get hit on 50 times a day, but it simply isn’t true. They’re much more likely to go through their day having awkward interactions with tongue-tied men who won’t look them in the eye. Very few men have the cajones to approach a 10 and hit on her – and most 10s are not likely to jump at the chance to stroke the ego of a player. In this sociosexual climate, there are fewer men who feel confident approaching, period.

III. OK Cupid’s Mathematics of Beauty

OKCupid’s latest blog post is about how the distribution of scores men give women for attractiveness predicts how many messages those women will receive. They studied this after noticing that many women rating in the 80th percentile, on average, had widely varying response rates from men.

The first thing they pointed out was that the scoring for a woman who is rated a 7 can look like this:

Or this:

It turns out that women with the second profile get a lot more interest from men, 2-3 times as much in some cases. OKCupid calls is the curse of being “cute” and comes up with a weighted formula that suggests you’re better off if 30% of guys think you’re heinous than if everyone thinks you’re quite attractive. What’s going on? OKCupid says that some people tend to produce stronger reactions than others. Being a person who draws a consensus appraisal is an online dating faux pas, and they go so far as to suggest playing up your faults in photos. Don’t hide those chubby thighs! I’m not particularly impressed with this reasoning (but then again, they’re the statisticians).

I agree that cute and wholesome appears to be a curse, according to these numbers, but in looking at the photos, it seems that many of the successful women are “hot and nasty” looking. In other words, the women with more uneven ratings look decidedly more sexually available, in my opinion.

For example, this woman: is getting only half the messages of this woman:

Huh?

The first woman is faaaaar better looking, in my opinion, but she doesn’t look like the sexual hellcat that is woman #2. In other words, the first woman is suffering from The Carol Syndrome. She got lots of high-ish ratings, but few men approached her. The second woman gets plenty of zeroes, but more ratings of “hot.” The guys who rated her “hot” followed through and took their shot.

Via a different route, OKCupid and I come to the same conclusion:

“So this is our paradox: when some men think you’re ugly, other men are more likely to message you. And when some men think you’re cute, other men become less interested. Why would this happen? Perhaps a little game theory can explain:

Suppose you’re a man who’s really into someone. If you suspect other men areuninterested, it means less competition. You therefore have an added incentive to send a message. You might start thinking: maybe she’s lonely. . . maybe she’s just waiting to find a guy who appreciates her. . . at least I won’t get lost in the crowd. . . maybe these small thoughts, plus the fact that you really think she’s hot, prod you to action.

On the other hand…someone conventionally cute, but not totally hot, might appear to be more in-demand than she actually is. To the typical man considering her, she’s obviously attractive enough to create the impression that other guys are into her, too.”

As an aside, I believe that “hot” and “edgy” are trumping “beautiful” and “warm” in the sexual marketplace today as a direct result of hookup culture, and I plan to expand on this theory in another post soon. Of course, it may be that the first woman is getting messages from men who are interested in a relationship with a lovely woman, and the second woman is getting messaged by men looking for “hit it and quit it” sex.

For now, it does appear that weak bidders have the upper hand in attracting male attention. If you’re a weak bidder (no offense), then you’d be smart to be realistic and decisive. It probably can’t hurt to draw on some heavy eyeliner and take a “come hither” photo of yourself for OKCupid.

If you’re a strong bidder, you can’t afford to sit and wait for men to seek you out. You must be proactive in your search for a man. The only way Carol is likely to get a date at Starbucks is if she approaches the man she finds attractive. That would be the highest possible payoff for Cute Guy. He gets the date without any effort whatsoever!

By the way, game theory is predicated on the notion that people behave rationally. Behavioral economist Dan Ariely, author of Predictably Irrational and The Upside of Irrationality, doesn’t agree (obvs, haha). He’s currently working on a book about dating, which should be very interesting.

2 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • GudEnuf

    Very few men have the cajones to approach a 10 and hit on her

    While I object to your gender-essentialist language, the point bears repeating. A 10 is easier than an 8. Males, repeat that to yourself: a 10 is easier than an 8. This is game theory gone awry: because men think there is more competition for the 10, they avoid pursuing her; which means there is less competition for her. This is true even online, where the consequences of rejection are minimal.Aren’t you lucky to have this secret information!

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @GudEnuf

      While I object to your gender-essentialist language…

      Assuming you are serious here (last time I checked only one gender sported cajones) I can only imagine two possibilities:
      1. You’ve been abducted and set to gender neutral reeducation camp.
      2. You’re hooking up with an ardent feminist.

      The graphic that I think you may be referring to is this:

      OKCupid Paradox
      They then said, under the heading “What We Think is Going On,” what I included above in the post:

      So this is our paradox: when some men think you’re ugly, other men are more likely to message you. And when some men think you’re cute, other men become less interested.

      GudEnuf says:

      I’m surprised you don’t buy in to this explanation, seeing it is a natural extension of the Carol paradox.

      But I did buy into it, and specifically identified it as an extension of the Carol paradox. I also said that I was not impressed with their reasoning, and offered additional insights re the sexual message conveyed in the second photo. Do you agree that the first woman is prettier than the second? Do you agree that the second looks like a “bad girl?” Do you agree that men may be more motivated to message a bad girl?

  • GudEnuf

    She got lots of high-ish ratings, but few men approached her. The second woman gets plenty of zeroes, but more ratings of “hot.” The guys who rated her “hot” followed through and took their shot.

    Why are you ignoring the second part of post, which specifically rules out this theory?

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @GudEnuf
    Oops, just realized I didn’t link to OKCupid. Will remedy that. But I’m not sure what you’re talking about re the theory being ruled out – could you be specific?

  • GudEnuf

    @Susan

    When you control for the number of men who think a woman is hot, heteroscedasticitic beauty still wins out. In other words:

    Woman A: 5 men rate her 10, 5 men rate her 0.
    Woman B: 5 men rate her 10, 5 men rate her 7.

    Woman A will still get more messages. It sounds counter-intuitive, but the explanation is in your quote (“So this is our paradox…”). I’m surprised you don’t buy in to this explanation, seeing it is a natural extension of the Carol paradox.

  • Geoff

    They say a picture’s worth a thousand words…but not in this case. The Susan example picture is just a picture–maybe on her online dating profile it says she’s very religious, loves her still-married parents, and expects to wait until marriage. Maybe the other girl says she’s a Scientologist, hates her father, and expects to wait until about 7 p.m. tonight to have sex. Obviously, these would be variables of great interest if we were trying to dispute the Carol Syndrome Theory.
    .
    I have an alternate theory–chicks as hot as Carol above will get alpha interest of all kinds (and obviously, alphas don’t have confidence problems). They may dismiss her once they figure she’s not an easy score, but they WILL approach her.
    .
    Without some scientific testing that controls for variability in sexual openness, I believe the Carol Syndrome Theory is interesting but unproven, and likely just plain wrong. Good looking chicks do NOT get ignored.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I have an alternate theory–chicks as hot as Carol above will get alpha interest of all kinds

      But if alphas are only 20% of the population, it’s likely that Carol is often somewhere with zero alphas. In addition, she may be dismissing the guys who approach as overly cocky or smug, a turnoff for many women. Even Mystery flamed out frequently. As has been noted in another comment, Carol is unlikely to go out with just anyone – she’s a strong bidder, and will respond to men of her level of attractiveness, or near it, and she may be very selective. As I pointed out in the post, this is probably not a winning strategy for Carol in this SMP.

  • http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/ hambydammit

    Very interesting stuff. I’d like to suggest another vector in the equation. While it is true that “10”s may be getting approached less because of… what shall we call it… non-selection conformity?? … It’s probably also true that there’s an element of men knowing their place in the universe.

    As you can probably guess, I’m not shy about approaching 10s if the mood hits me. But regardless of my experience, the fact that I own a house, a car, and an education, and a dozen other awesome things about me, I know that the most I’m likely to get in most cases is a phone number which will somehow never be answered.

    Through sheer persistence, I’ve had my fifteen minutes of fame with a 10 or two. But the reality is that most 10s who are complaining about not getting hit on enough are complaining about not getting hit on by 9s and 10s. True, the 6s and 5s aren’t hitting on them either, but all they’d get out of that would be an ego boost, not a date.

    So the 6s and 7s are getting hit on by 6s and 7s (and probably 5s) because the game theory is working out in the guys’ heads and the risk is lower. But we can’t forget that the risk is lower because of simple economics, too. No fancy game theory necessary. HB10s turn down 6s and 7s. And Male 9s and 10s are as rare as female 10s.

  • pjay

    Men should forget about “their place in the universe” and always make a beeline for the hottest woman in the room.
    *
    For precisely the reason that most men will be intimidated by her and hesitate to even acknowledge her presence.
    *
    Testicles. Use them.

  • Mike C

    It’s probably also true that there’s an element of men knowing their place in the universe.
    .
    I’ll second that.

  • Mike C

    However, weak bidders understand they can be outbid and often bid more aggressively, while the strong bidders hold out for a great deal. Empirical studies of auctions show that weak bidders often win. In dating, a strong bidder is a woman who feels very confident of her ability to attract men, while a weak bidder knows that she is less attractive and faces stiff competition.
    .
    I think this also dovetails with the idea that generally speaking guys are going to take the easier route.
    .
    By the way, game theory is predicated on the notion that people behave rationally. Behavioral economist Dan Ariely, author of Predictably Irrational and The Upside of Irrationality, doesn’t agree (obvs, haha).
    .
    This has been studied extensively and exhaustively in the field of behavioral finance. People are extremely irrational, and irrational in very predictable ways.

  • Christi

    I think this is all very interesting. It got me thinking of my number one complaint about guys. Whether I’m at a bar, Starbucks, or crossing the street (happened this morning), the guys that approach me often fall into two categories. They are either guys that are extremely not my type (older, out of shape, or just weird), OR they are ultra alpha, douchey, game-y, cheesy, and hot. I want the nice, cute guy!!! But that guy NEVER talks to me!!! ughhhhh

  • Christi

    oops I wasn’t done. My friends and I talk about this all the time and we figure the weird guys have nothing to lose. They are so used to getting rejected that it’s almost a joke to them. Then the other guys are probably so used to getting their way that they are sure that they will score.

  • pjay

    I think only women have cajones (pun alert).

    Men have *cojones*.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “Where have all the most appealing men gone? Married young, most of them—and sometimes to women whose most salient characteristic was not their beauty, or passion, or intellect, but their decisiveness.”
    .
    I think this intersects with the idea of loyalty as an LTR value. Athol Kay waxed recently about a woman’s expression of loyalty to her husband as a key factor in his faithfulness and marital satisfaction. (Link http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/2010/07/female-loyalty-is-selling-point.html)
    .
    To the point of loyalty, a woman being decisive in her pursuit of a man (or receipt of his pursuit) is a major active signal that she is prepared to be loyal. When she is making social investment in a man, he can predict she’ll feel “skin in the game” in that she took an active role in building her relationship with him. Of course there is a Laffer curve of reversing returns on this, slutty women have no qualms about overtly pursuing and they certainly don’t have any loyalty going on.
    .
    This goes to my point that women are going to have to be assertive in the SMP – showing overt interest, responding with confidence to a man’s advances and sometimes pursuing on their own part. Neither the legal incentives nor the overall quality of the choices are getting better for men, so women who would do well to take a more forward role in actively signalling (that includes initiating the DTR talk.)
    .
    I’ve beat this horse before, but a lot of young women appear to be mentally stuck to the “men present, women select” mating model, and that’s just not a winning strategy today. Plenty of plain Janes have a great shot at a good man and a good life if they are willing to assert some agency.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I’ve beat this horse before, but a lot of young women appear to be mentally stuck to the “men present, women select” mating model, and that’s just not a winning strategy today. Plenty of plain Janes have a great shot at a good man and a good life if they are willing to assert some agency.

      Agree 100%. Bootcamps for women, perhaps?

  • terre

    But if alphas are only 20% of the population, it’s likely that Carol is often somewhere with zero alphas

    .
    This is not how sexual hierarchy works, although if she’s sufficiently attractive (or deluded) she’ll set up shop and move to a big city where the alphas are truly alpha. Hence women who trek to Hollywood, etc.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    “Mathematics of beauty”….sort of like the situation in business where it might be better have a product fanatically loved by 30% and hated by most of the other 70% than one which is so-so liked by just about everybody.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      “Mathematics of beauty”….sort of like the situation in business where it might be better have a product fanatically loved by 30% and hated by most of the other 70% than one which is so-so liked by just about everybody.

      Yes, it’s like indifference vs. hate. A strong emotional response is always more interesting than a neutral one.

  • terre

    And neither sex is to blame for the sad “polyamory” community; both tend to be equally poor offenders for peddling that bill of goods. Women tend to be the more duped, though. The whole “friends with benefits” phenomenon often comically approximates a woman trying to convince herself she wanted to buy that deed to the Moon (check out this thread where commentators dress up their being discarded like a used tissue with phrases like “a relationship wasn’t in the cards”, “neither of us was ready”, etc.)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @terre
      I thought that post at Salon was interesting – it’s by Tracy Clark Flory, who used to be solidly in the sex-pos camp. Now Salon has deleted Broadsheet, the feminism blog, and she’s still writing the same kinds of articles without a feminist slant. Predictably, Amanda Marcotte has taken her to task at Slate for that FWB article. I thought it was right on, and I intend to write about it. But what fascinates me more is the drifting away of previous “believers” who try it and get hurt, like TCF did.

  • Bob

    Great post – though the rictus-grinning beta in the photo behind the “cuter” girl may also have something to do with it. Can’t find it now, but there is some link out there explaining that girls with guys in their photos are less likely to get responses on dating sites.

    I would also have to smack anyone whose ability to compare logically-deduced conlusions to the observations is impared. If “every” guy is approaching these hotter girls, so it’s not worth it to try… wouldn’t you see someone try if you were there long enough? Witnessed this exact thing happened at a coffee shop yesterday. Gorgeous girl was left alone for half an hour while I was with another lady-friend (in hindsight, my own lady-friend was boring, and only good manners kept me from hitting on the lonely hot chick, but meh, live and learn).

    The problem with the Carol effect is that the game changes as men become aware of it, or as they choose to act irrationally. For instance, in a town with an unusal concentration of Game proponents, or one where every man has read this article, more guys would make the approach. When this information becomes available, the rational method of acting shifts toward making a move. So, as the man said – “Testicles. Use them.”

  • Dalton

    This stuff about 10s not being approached is laughable. The hottest women I have actually spent time with got plenty of attention from guys even while I was with them. The hottest women I have known reported getting hit on by hundreds of men per year. I saw no reason to doubt them because I observed some of it while we were out together. There are plenty of men who are not intimidated by highly attractive women who already appear to be with a man. And a pretty big one like me.

    First you guys claim that less attractive women are harder to approach than beautiful women because they get approached more. Then you concede that most guys find beautiful women so intimidating that they don’t even try with them.

    How do you suppose all those average schlubs learned to be intimidated by beautiful women? Since some seem to have difficulty grasping the obvious, here it is: guys learn to be intimidated by things they repeatedly fail at. Monk’s Guide to Dating put it best:

    “Is it true that many gorgeous babes are never approached by guys?

    All I can say is, “Don’t believe the hype!” Unless a woman stays home all the time, has no job, has no friends or is in a convent, there is a really slim chance that she is unattached or has no suitors. If she is truly dateless, then it is by choice. Most likely she is being very selective. The contention that there are many gorgeous, lonely women is a myth and/or rationalization spread by losers. One need only look around to see the real truth. — Contributed by Friar Wally”

    http://losernet.tripod.com/monk1.html

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    ““Mathematics of beauty”….sort of like the situation in business where it might be better have a product fanatically loved by 30% and hated by most of the other 70% than one which is so-so liked by just about everybody.”
    .
    Ping to Aldonza and Susan, here’s the business Pareto Principle in action…if 80% of attention comes from 20% of the people, you’re better off having 20-30% of people digging you and the rest writing you off than have everyone thinking you’re an OK second choice if their Carol shoots them down.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Badger

      you’re better off having 20-30% of people digging you and the rest writing you off than have everyone thinking you’re an OK second choice if their Carol shoots them down.

      So you don’t accept the game theory explanation in this case? It’s not a question of guys thinking they don’t have a shot with the first girl – it’s guys getting psyched about the second girl precisely because they do think they may succeed. So yeah, having a really committed 20% is great, but how does a woman engender that? Do you agree with me that the second woman looks more sexually available? Could that explain it?

  • http://www.snubbr.com Henway

    I actually think the second woman is much cuter than the first… but that’s just my opinion. As a man, I will say your theory is absolutely true. I will not take the chance to approach a hot woman if I know many men find her covetable. And you’re absolutely right when you claim most hot women dun get hit on 50+ times in 1 day. The default action a man takes when they see a very hot women is one of shyness and fear, not hitting on her.

  • AnonymousF

    @Badger
    “This goes to my point that women are going to have to be assertive… showing overt interest, responding with confidence to a man’s advances and sometimes pursuing on their own part.”

    Yeah. A reticent woman will still have some options, but they won’t be as good or as numerous.

    When my fiancee and I first met, he saw something that was a dealbreaker for him. Getting him to ask me out took some effort. I had to make my interest in him obvious AND increase his interest in me enough to overcome the negative. If I’d taken the passive approach we’d never have gotten together.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Getting him to ask me out took some effort. I had to make my interest in him obvious AND increase his interest in me enough to overcome the negative. If I’d taken the passive approach we’d never have gotten together.

      Good testimonial here.

  • Guardial

    Of the two women pictured, they’re both about of equal attraction if you look closely. Both are getting on in years and trying to hide it. The second woman does a better job of distracting with makeup and hair.

    The first woman is obviously chunky. (The second may be also. The photo is cropped to make it difficult to tell.)

    They both display symptoms of Internet Disease.

    Not for the faint of heart.
    http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Internet_disease

    tl;dr The second woman makes a stronger visual impression with striking eye makeup.

  • Guardial

    Beautiful women get hit on constantly. The following covers it pretty well.

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/05/when-women-take-classes-in-tennis-wine.html?showComment=1179521940000#c6734529611275806165

    Tantor said…

    Truly attractive women need never search for men. We men are searching for them everywhere, all the time, around the clock, from puberty until death us do part. We have men positioned on alert around the planet in strategic locations ready to launch at a moment’s notice should an attractive woman appear. A pretty girl can’t go to the grocery store for a quart of milk without coming back with a date. Follow a pretty girl around for a few hours and you will find that she is constantly hit on by every man with a pulse. As far as providing our companionship to attractive women in need of it, we men have the Earth covered. There are no gaps in our coverage. None. If Gisele Bündchen needs a date tonight in the howling Arctic wilderness, we have men ready to go now to serve her need at their own expense and risk.

    So if a woman and her girlfriends can find no men who will date them it is not because all the available single men have been sucked off the face of the planet and deposited in some faraway nebula. It is far more likely that they have overestimated their attractiveness in the dating market and rejected the invitations that any reasonably attractive, healthy woman receives in the course of a week. There is not a single woman alive who can fail to get a date by lowering her expectations, which are too often wildly inflated by conceit.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Guardial
      I disagree entirely with what Tantor said, except that women should pursue their own interests and do what makes them happy. That is more likely to lead to meeting new people, including men. You’ve gotta get as many touches on the ball as possible.

      There is not a single woman alive who can fail to get a date by lowering her expectations, which are too often wildly inflated by conceit.“

      .
      OK, so let’s say a woman who is a 10 decides she is going to say yes to the first 5 who approaches her. She may wait a very long time. That’s the point – the unwillingness of men to approach. Providing links from Game blogs does not really add evidence, as I already stated that this myth is perpetrated precisely in this arena. And again, I’m not talking about “hired guns” here – sure, a hot slut in a bar gets hit on all the time. The story about Carol is interesting precisely because she is beautiful and classy.

  • Plain Jane

    Regarding “guys who know their place in the Universe” – they don’t hit on 10s but they don’t hit on their equals either. They WANT the 10s. They DON’T want their equals. Hence they end up with nobody. I have dozens of examples of this in the lives of the men around me.
    Christi, I also have experience of the weird or older guys approaching me but not the guys I want. I want guys who are my own age. They don’t have to be 10s. But again, guys my own age, my own ethnic group AND my own looks level are pining for 9s and 10s. Therefore I started dating interracially and was able to secure men of higher status within THEIR ethnic group(s).
    That means, a guy at my level in my own race is giving me a pass while holding out for a girl out of his league, while I am able to pull guys in other ethnic groups that are out of my league.
    Make sense?

  • Matt T

    Why would the “most appealing men” marry young? Since the most appealing men are alpha’s, wouldn’t they spend their 20s pumping and dumping girls rather than bothering with marriage? The study’s statement makes no sense to me from that perspective.

    @Plain Jane: Many guys will screw anything with a pulse, but even they have some sense of honor and pride. Everyone wants a girlfriend they can be seen in public with.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Why would the “most appealing men” marry young? Since the most appealing men are alpha’s, wouldn’t they spend their 20s pumping and dumping girls rather than bothering with marriage?

      First of all, the most appealing men for marriage are not alpha mansluts. Second, not all men enjoy a steady diet of pumping and dumping – some actually start to feel badly about using and then rejecting women. Third, some men enjoy the emotional intimacy and gratification that comes with falling in love.

  • Geoff

    @Plain Jane,
    Why do men have to be your own age? Unless you’re 28 or older, men your age are total horndogs who can’t be trusted.
    .
    As for you being non-selected–IF the guys are old enough to be willing to commit, maybe you could do some of the stuff other guys recommended on earlier post (a little makeup, no flannel shirts, etc.). As for dating interracially–that could be problematic for the kids, presuming you want some. Just sayin.

  • Timothy Webster

    That’s the problem. Two of you women now have admitted to ruling out “older” men. I’m in my early thirties, but I was relegated to “older man” status years ago. And I resent it. I’ve just hit my prime of strength, intelligence, and attractiveness. The non-slutty girls aren’t interested.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I’m in my early thirties, but I was relegated to “older man” status years ago. And I resent it. I’ve just hit my prime of strength, intelligence, and attractiveness. The non-slutty girls aren’t interested.

      That’s crazy. Perhaps this has something to do with your location? In Boston, a 25 yo woman will be primarily interested in men 27-33 or so. Women prefer to marry a man two years older, but will go up several years happily. Ten is the max. for many people – so it really depends on what you are looking for. If you want a 22 yo, you’re old. If you want a 28 yo, you’re golden.

  • Lavazza

    Guardia: “The kind of women who complain about the absence of men are the kind of women who complain about the presence of men. Complaining women are a form of Man Repellant. This is an important clue as to why these women are dateless.

    If they want dates, these whiny women need to stop bitching, get a positive attitude about life, and do what makes them happy. They won’t need to look for men. We men will find them.”

    Good stuff.

  • GudEnuf

    Assuming you are serious here (last time I checked only one gender sported cajones) I can only imagine two possibilities:
    1. You’ve been abducted and set to gender neutral reeducation camp.
    2. You’re hooking up with an ardent feminist.

    The problem is that approaching an attractive woman doesn’t take “cajones”; it takes courage. And courage is something both sexes have. Using testicles as a metaphor for courage is sexist because it reaffirms the stereotype that courage is a “manly” virtue.

    Do you agree that the first woman is prettier than the second? Do you agree that the second looks like a “bad girl?” Do you agree that men may be more motivated to message a bad girl?

    You’re cherry picking. This woman is as “good girl” as they come, but still gets more messages than Ms. Carol. The study looked at 43,000 women, and a comparison of two photos won’t get us far. To claim that “The second woman gets plenty of zeroes, but more ratings of ‘hot.'” ignores the fact that OKT had specifically controlled for this theory before offering their Carol 2.0 theory.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      courage is something both sexes have. Using testicles as a metaphor for courage is sexist because it reaffirms the stereotype that courage is a “manly” virtue.

      Courage, also known as bravery, fortitude, will, and intrepidity, is the ability to confront fear, pain, risk/danger, uncertainty, or intimidation. (Wikipedia)
      Both sexes may possess this trait, but throughout history, it is men who have been asked to display it. That is still true today, as American women are excluded from combat, working in mines, on oil rigs, etc. Women police display courage, and I’d argue that every woman who goes through childbirth needs it. But there is good reason why it is known as a manly virtue. Finally, in this context, the courage to approach for a date has always been required of men. Men display, women select. (It’s biological, b/c eggs are rare, sperm is not.)
      .

      The study looked at 43,000 women, and a comparison of two photos won’t get us far.

      True, but OKCupid chose just a few to display in the article. In the graph showing eight women, in order of success, I found the first four pretty and wholesome, while the last four all exhibited sexual cues – bed hair, colored hair, heavy makeup, etc.
      .
      As I said in the post, OKC and I came to the same conclusion re the Carol Syndrome. Not sure why you keep suggesting we’re on different pages.

  • GudEnuf

    I can’t hotlink images. This woman is the “good girl” I referred to.

  • Christi

    @Timothy Webster

    I would date early 30s. I am 25. Old man status for me is anything older than mid 30s.

    @Plain Jane

    It’s odd how that shift happened for you. I haven’t really done any interracial dating. But I just think the nice good guys that don’t approach me are shyer than the douches that do.

    I know a lot of you are saying that girls need to be more assertive. Maybe we do. It’s just really hard. At least for me. I mostly let the guy do all of the chasing–initiate contact, then dates, phone calls etc… I do respond in a receptive manner though. When a guy that I like approaches me, I certain respond well. I smile and flirt. I don’t really know how I would go about being more assertive. Any one care to get literal?

  • Christi

    on second though, I went on a date last month with a guy who was 35. It was great. But he had too much baggage (had an ex wife), so I nipped it in the bud. So maybe I should say that my line is drawn at late 30s rather than mid 30s.

  • Sox

    I’m more likely to hit on the hottest girl in the group, that’s always been my preference. I hear all these stories of attractive women getting ignored by intimidated men but I’ve never witnessed it in real life. The times I have seen it happen, they were simply unapproachable, wearing a scowl or shooting down all subtle advances perhaps unknowingly.

    Guys have a huge range of types they approach and hit on, and they usually go for the hottest gi they can get IOIs/see approachability from.

    Also, a lot of hot female friends of mine have often been consciously, subconciously, or selectively oblivious when it comes to getting attention. I’ll notice and right away and they’ll feign ignorance. Whether it’s intentional or not it becomes evident that they only notice when it’s a guy in their preferred range (7/8+). I see this as the same as women refusing to see “friendly guys” as angling to try n get in their pants like any other – plausible deniability. They don’t want to be responsible for rejecting the guy. It’s understandable and I’m sure I’d face the same dilemma.

    Gotta say that I find the first chick much more attractive. Dunno whats up with that. Also, I’ve been on OKC before and I’ve noticed that most people don’t give out uniform ratings below a 4-5 (which sends an email notifying the person). Anything under 4 is really all the same.

  • Sox

    Wrote that last from my phone, apologies for the disjointed bits.

  • Lavazza

    Christi: If prior commitment gone bad is a deal breaker I guess that guys have every reason to avoid commitment. Women seem to understand that they will fuck up a guy beyond repair once he is committed. Unhurt and uncautious is a rather small window, especially in combination with the other stuff on the list.

  • http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com Stuart Schneiderman

    Great post, Susan. I like the way you are using game theory to study the dating and mating world.
    A word or two about the two pictures of the two women. Clearly, the first woman is better looking than the second. I would not presume to be able to suss out all the factors that influence choice here, but I would note that the first woman is pictured with a hand on her right shoulder. This seems to suggest that she belongs to someone, and perhaps this is why she is less approachable. In her picture she seems surrounded by men… you can see a man’s smile in the upper right corner. Again, this suggests unavailable. For what it’s worth, the first woman is not only better looking; she seems more clearly to be relationship material. The second woman, with the artificially colored hair and the strange eye makeup is clearly looking not looking for a relationship. She seems to be more looking to party, with few strings attached. Call me old fashioned, but the question of relationship material is the question of whether or not a man would introduce her to his mother. A man would certainly introduce the first woman, but probably not the second.
    I would also point out, strangely enough, that the first, more beautiful woman, is not only surrounded by men, but, she seems to be wearing a strapless gown of some sort. In other terms, we do not know what she is wearing, or even whether she is wearing anything. Surrounded by men… underdressed… not exactly a sign of availability. With the second woman we do see a trace of her top.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Stuart
      Thanks for articulating some things that I was also thinking as I looked at the pictures. I wasn’t sure how much these various telltale “clues” might mean to men in terms of approaching. I did pick up on the sexuality of some of the photos, and also how they contain more direct eye contact. They remind me of actors’ headshots – the gazing eyes are meant to directly communicate interest to the viewer. I know there are people who make their living consulting on how to present the best online dating photo and profile – now I can see why.

  • Lavazza

    Here’s a good part of the explanation for the topics discussed here:

    ” … The means/end paradox occurs when two people are caught in a dynamic where means-based person is accruing losses, or psychic sunk costs, through an interaction, while the end-based person is maximizing wins through that exact same interaction. Thanks to the principle of loss aversion, the means-based person becomes more heavily invested and winds up in a sunk cost trap. And the end-based person becomes less invested because he’s only been accruing psychic gains the whole time. As a result, the means-based person will usually have more trouble walking away from the relationship and being more tempted to invest more resources than the end-based person. …”

    The whole post is worth quoting, so I will give your this just as an appertizer.

    http://therawness.com/raw-concepts-means/

  • VI

    The sad part about this is that strong bidders hold out until their fertility is about to hit the wall. If they don’t settle down by that point, they just become cougars. Hot cougars, but cougars nonetheless. Most men want to reproduce, especially desirable men with high T. That’s why even hot cougars have a hard time finding a decent man.

    I will probably settle down in my early 30s with a 20-something, while my female peers will be getting pumped and dumped by men who have no interest in a childless marriage.

  • http://photoncourier.blogspot.com david foster

    Another business analogy that may be relevant is The Winner’s Curse. This can be seen in mergers & acquisitions when the corporate mating instinct becomes so strong that one company becomes emotionally over-invested in pursuing its target, and winds up paying so much for it that once the dreamed-of acquisition finally occurs, it will be almost impossible to make it profitable.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @david foster
      I was thinking about The Winner’s Curse recently when I heard that Google was offering huge bucks for Groupon. Many think the Groupon business model is not sustainable. I listened to a lecture by a Wharton prof recently where he claims it doesn’t create any new customers, just shifts them around on a board. He likened it to a Ponzi scheme. I figured Google must know something that we don’t, and Groupon rejected their advances, of course. I do wonder about the emotional investment on both sides.

  • Anonymous

    @ Christi
    “At least for me. I mostly let the guy do all of the chasing–initiate contact, then dates, phone calls etc… I do respond in a receptive manner though. When a guy that I like approaches me, I certain respond well. I smile and flirt. I don’t really know how I would go about being more assertive. Any one care to get literal?”

    Initiate contact yourself. It doesn’t even have to be with a specific guy you’re hitting on, but can be with a group of guys. For example, if you have a class right before lunch, and you’be chatted with the people in your row

  • Anonymous

    Oops, didn’t mean to hit submit yet.

    For example, if you have a class right before lunch, and you’ve chatted with the people in your row before, see if all/any of them want to go grab some lunch afterward. It’s casual and easy. Convenient too.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Anon
      This is a great idea! Approaching a group, and saying, “Anyone want to get lunch?” is great. Depending on who accepts, you might make a friend, or kindle an attraction. You’ll be viewed as someone open and friendly, not entitled and picky. Of course, it’s important to manage one’s expectations – you may need to do quite a bit of this before meeting someone to date. But I’m a big fan of making friends everywhere you can – meeting friends of friends is the 4th most common way that married people meet.

  • Geoff

    @Stuart Schneiderman,
    “I would not presume to be able to suss out all the factors that influence choice here…”
    .
    I would.
    .
    To you guys who see no difference in the photos, or worse, find the second woman more attractive than the first, let me clarify the situation:

    1. The upper girl has long, lustrous, obviously healthy hair. The lower girl has some weird-ass off-pink color from a can to draw attention to herself cuz her face ain’t getting the job done.
    2. The face of the upper girl appears very symmetrical. The lower girl could be a longer-faced version of a Japanese cartoon character.
    3. The upper girl is smiling and appears open to your approach. The lower girl looks like she’s about to bargain for a better price from her meth dealer.
    4. The upper girl has a photo taken from a position of balance. The lower girl’s photo is taken at an odd angle, which every guy knows is supposed to make us think she’s “edgy and cool” but really means she took the photo herself because she has no friends.
    5. The upper girl has glowing, healthy, supple skin. The lower girl’s skin is…er…I’m not even going to look cuz I’m still looking at the upper girl.
    .
    In short, argue what you will about the Carol theory, but the upper girl is light-years beyond the lower girl in looks. Upper girl is a solid 7 at worst and maybe an 8 depending on the body. The lower girl is, at BEST, a 5. With beer goggles.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Geoff

      In short, argue what you will about the Carol theory, but the upper girl is light-years beyond the lower girl in looks. Upper girl is a solid 7 at worst and maybe an 8 depending on the body. The lower girl is, at BEST, a 5. With beer goggles.

      Exactly! I agree with your analysis of these two women. The upper one looks kinda like Jennifer Garner, IMO. So why does the less attractive one get twice as much attention? If the Carol Syndrome doesn’t explain it, what does? Why is the lower girl getting high ratings and lots of messages? Is my theory correct that it is precisely the fact that she looks edgy, sexy, and like an anime?

  • http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com Stuart Schneiderman

    Thanks for adding some interesting speculation, Geoff. We all agree that the first woman is much more attractive than the second. Still and all, the question was: why is the less attractive woman getting more attention than the more attractive one? That’s what I was trying to evaluate.

  • Mike C

    @ Christi
    .
    on second though, I went on a date last month with a guy who was 35. It was great. But he had too much baggage (had an ex wife), so I nipped it in the bud.
    .
    You don’t mention if he had kids. Does he have kids? If not, is the ex-wife still actively involved in his life in some way? If there are no kids, and the ex-wife is totally out of the picture, I’m curious as to what “baggage” you think he has.
    .
    Obviously, a person has the right to end or choose not to continue a personal involvement with someone for whatever reason they consider important, but this would be one that seems quite arbitrary assuming no connection to the ex-wife at all or children. I’ll admit I bring personal bias to this as I am divorced (but no kids). At the risk of sounding cocky, fact of the matter is, my current GF would have made a huge mistake had she disqualified me initially because I had been married previously.

  • Timothy Webster

    @Christi

    Yep, I encounter that too; “You had an ex-wife? Ewww!” So if I’m not an “old man”, then I’m ruled out by the non-sluts. Doesn’t matter I struggled for 10 years to make it work.

    I mean, I keep my dick to myself, but the girls that treat me the NICEST, are quite slutty, even a few crack whores. Probably because there’s no sexual tension between us. They’re off getting theirs taken care of when and where they want.

  • Mike C

    Regarding “guys who know their place in the Universe” – they don’t hit on 10s but they don’t hit on their equals either. They WANT the 10s. They DON’T want their equals. Hence they end up with nobody. I have dozens of examples of this in the lives of the men around me.
    .
    Of course they WANT the 10s, just like the average girls would still WANT tall, dark, handsome, socially dominant, and charming.
    .
    Regarding the point about not hitting on their equals, and ending up with nobody, I think there is something else going on here. I can’t quantify the exact impact, but it is the elephant in the room on this point. I think many of these guys are essentially substituting porn for real woman sexual relationships (probably a lot more David Alexanders out there then one would guess). Check Google for the top 10 traffic websites. Different guys probably have different preference shifts, but a virtual 8-10 beats a 4-5 that is going to take a lot of time and effort. On one level, that is sad, but I really think it is accurate to some degree. Back when I was actively studying Game and reading the websites, I remember encountering more than once the advice to guys to stop masturbating to porn to try and boost the motivation to go out and approach girls. The “dozens of examples” you mention….I’d wager a good chunk of them have pretty sizable porn collections.

  • Frankie

    Plain Jane said: “Regarding “guys who know their place in the Universe” – they don’t hit on 10s but they don’t hit on their equals either. They WANT the 10s. They DON’T want their equals. Hence they end up with nobody. I have dozens of examples of this in the lives of the men around me.”

    Hi Jane. Please do not assume all picky men and women really want (or should want) to marry at all costs. Many come to the conclusion that living alone is more rewarding than lowering their standards, depending on how far they would have to lower them. The same process applies equally to both sexes.

    I am a 47 year old man, Never married. Never been in love. Not gay. Short and butt ugly. Good career I enjoy. I could never interest any decent looking women. Only women as unattractive as me would ever have anything to do with me datewise. I spent over fifteen years being frustrated. I’m glad that period of my life, at least regarding the romantic side, is long past me. I have no intention of marrying and living with a woman of similar attractiveness.

    I have never felt “entitled” to a woman better looking than me. I have never felt a victim of anything. I am happy being single and comfortable with my situation. I have so many other things to be thankful for in my life. I have built a happy life around this because I knew from an early age (at mid 20s) that I would likely be a lifelong bachelor.

    This problem only becomes a real problem when someone feels cheated because of their situation and the choices they make as a result and then they let that frustration ruin other parts of their life. It’s ok not to settle, but it is not ok to blame someone else, or the system, for the consequences of your choices.

    If I felt bitter about being alone (alone I am, but almost never lonely), then my only moral option would be to lower my standards (in my case, really lower them) in order to end my bachelorhood, and force myself to like it. So far, I am anything but bitter about this.

  • pjay

    *
    @Timothy Webster:

    Where on earth do you hang out? Nice slutty crack whores?

  • Geoff

    @Stuart,
    – I commented earlier that I simply don’t believe the premise. Hot girls get hit on all the time, but maybe they don’t see it that way/notice since betas are invisible to them. The data associated with the study is self-reported and is nothing more than a theory to explain a problem that frankly, I don’t think exists. Would love someone to do a scientific study of the Carol system that involves control for other variables. Don’t see that it’s been done yet.
    .
    @Mike C,
    Sounds like you’re ok in your situation now, but to men who’ve been married but were honorable? Don’t trust women to make a reasonable/logical decision that you having been married and showed fidelity indicates you’re valuable–pop culture (which is filth) has told them you’re used up/a bad gamble. So just keep it to yourself unless you have kids. She doesn’t need to know.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      The data associated with the study is self-reported and is nothing more than a theory to explain a problem that frankly, I don’t think exists.

      No, it’s not. OKCupid knows exactly how many of its members send and receive messages, and to whom. If you read the original article that I linked to, you’ll see that they were scratching their heads as this happened again and again. It was incredibly significant, statistically. They’re not even sure of the explanation for the paradox, but the phenomenon is not in question.

  • Mike C

    Sounds like you’re ok in your situation now, but to men who’ve been married but were honorable? Don’t trust women to make a reasonable/logical decision that you having been married and showed fidelity indicates you’re valuable–pop culture (which is filth) has told them you’re used up/a bad gamble. So just keep it to yourself unless you have kids. She doesn’t need to know.
    .
    Oh yeah, I’m good. I wasn’t asking for my own personal situation, but more as a thought experiment for Christy to ponder. Generally speaking, I think women have a tendency to “screen out” men for all sorts of reasons, many of which border from probably not important to the completely ludicrous (his shoes and belt didn’t match), and then in the very next breath bemoan not being in a relationship and asking “where have all the good men” gone.
    .
    I’m really not trying to pick on Christy, but if you had a “great” date with someone, it seems strange to me not to follow up with another date just because he was married before, but again whether or not kids are in the picture are the key determinant because that represents a financial obligation and a tie to the ex-wife forever. No kids though, no connection. Since my divorce, I’ve seen and spoken to my ex-wife 1 time by sheer accidental coincidence. I’m just curious what type of “baggage” someone thinks is there. From a certain perspective, WE ALL BRING BAGGAGE FROM ALL OF OUR PREVIOUS HUMAN RELATIONSHIPS in the sense that they shape our views and influence our behavior.

  • Mike C

    @ Susan,

    New filter or policy or something? This is the first time I have ever seen a comment of mine say “awaiting moderation”

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C
      I’ve been having trouble with some of my plugins, which has taken the site down a few times in recent days. I had to remove my “whitelist” plugin, and the wordpress system is random about putting comments into moderation. I have truly never broken the code. I’ll try reactivating that plugin – fingers crossed.

  • Tom

    In a recent post I asked why difficult, demanding women who put out get boyfriends. (Hint: the qualifier at the end is the kicker.) Several guys commented that it’s because bitches and sluts try harder. They’re making their interest known, signaling their availability, driving down the risk of rejection for the male. They also consider them more feminine and attractive. But why? The most attractive women don’t have to be sluts. Or do they?
    ____________________
    One of the problems with attractive women and promiscuous behavior is a lot of time it is the mens behavior that drive the attractive womens number up. . A good looking woman is just as likely to be fooled by the clever and polished lines of a player as a less attractive lady. She may have good intentions, is duped by a players confidence and alpha like attributes and sleeps with him thinking it will hook him. But alas, it doesnt. While she is thinking, “what happened?” he is thinking ,”next.”…No wonder women of experience have learned to not trust men. Attractive women too have a tough time seprating the good guys from the players. Attractive women can be a bit more choosey, but that does not mean they have the life skills to choose wisely.

  • Tom

    @mike
    you said “Obviously, a person has the right to end or choose not to continue a personal involvement with someone for whatever reason they consider important, but this would be one that seems quite arbitrary assuming no connection to the ex-wife at all or children. I’ll admit I bring personal bias to this as I am divorced (but no kids). At the risk of sounding cocky, fact of the matter is, my current GF would have made a huge mistake had she disqualified me initially because I had been married previously.
    __________________
    Mike maybe she sees a man who has been married as a bad relationship bet. Or maybe she wouldnt be able to get the thought of you making love to another woman hunderds or maybe thousands of times out of her head.(rational or not)?
    That is the same premise I made a while ago about promiscuous women. They are not all the same and are not all promiscuous for the same reasons.
    Ofcourse this example is partially tongue in cheek, that woman very well may have missed out on a geat guy (you) but some divorced men do carry baggage even though there are no kids and the ex is not of the picture.

  • Mike C

    Mike maybe she sees a man who has been married as a bad relationship bet. Or maybe she wouldnt be able to get the thought of you making love to another woman hunderds or maybe thousands of times out of her head.(rational or not)?
    .
    Haha, good one! Although I doubt the latter comes into play. It would be interesting to see the divorce statistics on second marriages versus first marriages. That very well may be true. It is what it is though. I never did and never would lie about being married unlike many highly promiscuous women.
    .
    But again, when you criteria A, B, C, D, E, F, X, Y, Z pretty soon you’ve excluded 99% of the men out there as eligible partners. Clearly, this effect does occur otherwise books like “Marry Him” wouldn’t even get published. Like I said though, it is women that you see en masse asking “why can’t I get a boyfriend”, “where are all the marriageable guys”, and then turning around and saying “forget that one, his shirt doesn’t match his pants”
    .
    So I don’t object to anyone screening on whatever criteria, they want, just be cognizant of the mathematical reality that you are shrinking the pool smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller everytime you add one more factor to the mix

  • AnonymousF

    @Mike C

    “Obviously, a person has the right to end or choose not to continue a personal involvement with someone for whatever reason they consider important, but this would be one that seems quite arbitrary assuming no connection to the ex-wife at all or children. I’ll admit I bring personal bias to this as I am divorced (but no kids). At the risk of sounding cocky, fact of the matter is, my current GF would have made a huge mistake had she disqualified me initially because I had been married previously.”

    It’s not arbitrary at all. All other things being equal, people who have married and divorced are viewed as a “worse bet” than never-married people, at least when under age 35 or so (later it gets more complicated). It’s true that in specific circumstances, a divorced person may not be a worse bet than a single one (no kids, not paying alimony, no co-owned assets, no connection to the ex or ex-in-laws, no permanent emotional trauma or hangups). But it costs time and effort to verify the person’s situation, especially since you can’t really take their word for it. A lot of people just plain lie about such things, and even well-intentioned people delude themselves. And since the “investigation” would take place in the course of a dating relationship, the woman will probably be getting more and more emotionally attached to the guy in the meantime.

    I would advise a woman with few options to make the effort to dig in, get involved and investigate, because she may otherwise miss out on what might’ve been her only chance for a great guy. But for a woman with options, it’ s just not worth the hassle when there are other good guys who haven’t been married before. I wouldn’t have bothered when I was single in my early and mid 20’s, and even now in my late 20’s I probably still wouldn’t (if I somehow became single again). I don’t think most of my single guy friends would either.

  • GudEnuf

    And again, I’m not talking about “hired guns” here – sure, a hot slut promiscuous woman in a bar gets hit on all the time.

    This is probably due to the fact that men think promiscuous women have lower standards. In reality, some women are willing to have sex quickly, but they don’t want to have sex with just anybody.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      a hot slut promiscuous woman

      So now you’re putting a word off limits that is embraced by sex-positive feminists, e.g. My Sluthood, Myself? Do I need to remind you that slut shaming is an expression coined by feminists? Who is she, GudEnuf? You really have drunk the Kool Aid, haha. She must be a Women’s Studies major.

  • John G

    Whenever I see numbers, percentages, and the like thrown around, I always think of the old college football coach who never passed the football. Interviewers would ask him why he never passed. He would reply, “One of three things can happen and two of them are bad.”

    Sometimes it’s just a numbers game. Sometimes, it’s Occam’s razor. Sometimes, it’s the other person and it has nothing to do with you. Sometimes, you are having a bad day. Someitmes it’s risk -v- reward.

    If you pay any attention to the concealed carry community (private citizens carrying firearms), they have what are called ‘caliber wars’ in that they insist that caliber ‘X’ is the best due to factors X, Y, and Z. When it comes to concealed carry and self defense, the most important thing is stopping the threat. How best to do that? People get so focused in on that, and the tiny role that caliber plays because that is the only variable that they can measure and control. In a gun fight, physical environment, time of day, the mental and physical capacities of the aggressor and defender, their martial training, and the condition of the weapons used are more important than caliber.

    Chatting someone up/asking them out isn’t a gun fight. I know this, I used it as an example.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @John G
      Welcome. I agree that we would be unwise to take any of these numbers, or theories, as gospel truth. What I found interesting about these examples of game theory is that it questions the role of psychology, risk aversion, and expected benefits in dating. In these examples, the least risk averse people are more likely to be successful. It fits in with my general message about being proactive and taking the initiative, especially for women.

  • GudEnuf

    So now you’re putting a word off limits that is embraced by sex-positive feminists, e.g. My Sluthood, Myself? Do I need to remind you that slut shaming is an expression coined by feminists? Who is she, GudEnuf? You really have drunk the Kool Aid, haha. She must be a Women’s Studies major.

    Your not using the s-word in the way sex-positive feminists do. They are reclaiming it, you are un-reclaiming it.

    I bet you think it’s racist that white people can’t use the n-word, hmmm?

  • Plain Jane

    1. Matt T says:
    January 26, 2011 at 3:07 am
    @Plain Jane: “Many guys will screw anything with a pulse, but even they have some sense of honor and pride. Everyone wants a girlfriend they can be seen in public with.

    *** Matt T, are you saying that a male 5 is embarrassed to be seen with a female 5 in public?!? If so, that is ridiculous. Like I said, many men pass up women at their own level (not lower), while pining for women several points above them. Its unrealistic.
    _______________________________

    2. Geoff says:
    January 26, 2011 at 3:33 am
    @Plain Jane,
    “Why do men have to be your own age? Unless you’re 28 or older, men your age are total horndogs who can’t be trusted…………As for dating interracially–that could be problematic for the kids, presuming you want some. Just sayin.”

    ***Geoff, When I say “older” I meant men who are MORE than 10 years older than me. Like Susan said, for many people 10 years is the max they will go. I’m one of those people.
    As far as interracial being “problematic” for my future kids – I know several mixed kids and they are doing just fine. Splendidly, in fact.
    ___________________________________

    3. Timothy Webster says:
    January 26, 2011 at 3:52 am
    That’s the problem. Two of you women now have admitted to ruling out “older” men. I’m in my early thirties, but I was relegated to “older man” status years ago. And I resent it. I’ve just hit my prime of strength, intelligence, and attractiveness.

    *** Timothy, by older I meant WAY older – more than 10 years. If you are in your early 30s I don’t see why any woman in her late 20s should relegate you to “older man status”. Now, if you are hoping to land an early 20s college student, that’s another matter. But a 28 year old working woman should realize that an early 30s man is well within her own age range.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    Your not using the s-word in the way sex-positive feminists do. They are reclaiming it, you are un-reclaiming it.
    I bet you think it’s racist that white people can’t use the n-word, hmmm?

    .
    Certainly not. Racism is prejudice based on innate differences, not actions. Sluthood is a chosen way of life, a choice that affects all women. If women don’t want to be called sluts, they know what to do. They might start by taking off the shorts that say SLUT across the back.

  • Passer_By

    A couple thoughts

    I. On the Eligible Bachelor paradox, I often marvel at how people go to great lengths to explain what can easily be explained by female hypergamy. I know hypergamy is overemphasized at times, and I think the 80/20 rule is an exaggeration outside of the hookup/ONS context, but I think it’s fair to say that men simply view a larger percentage of women as desirable than women do men. For convenience, let’s say it’s really a 70/35 rule, or 70/40 or whatever (acknowledging that this oversimplifies things because obviously the ones at the top of the 35 are more desirable than those at the bottom). Now suppose that a majority of those in the desirable male group get married to a like number of women from the desirable femal group. It doesn’t take a mathematical genius to figure out that removing a majority of these men with 1 to 1 pairings will greatly distort the ratio for those that remain. In other words, suppose we remove 25 from each of the 70 and and the 35. This leaves a 45/10 ratio. So, there ya go.

    I don’t doubt that the game theory they describe might have some bearing, but hypergramy (coupled with removal of the desirable males in monogomous pairings) is probably the dominant force here.

    II. Carol.

    The main problem with this is that it assumes that the failure to approach is driven by some rational cost benefit analysis, rather than from an inexplicable discomfort and nervousness driven by more primitive phobias. It also assumes that carol is sending off the same indicators of interest/disinterest as women who are approached more. Maybe carol simply sends off indicators of disinterest out of instinctive habit (or habits developed early on). Most reasonable men instinctively assume disinterest on the part of an attractive woman, so if she backs that up with IODs, it’s not so surprising that men don’t approach.

    III. OK Cupid

    I don’t date at all, so I don’t date online, but I’ve looked at the sites on a few occasions when helping and/or evaluating for a friend. From what I’ve seen, a lot of women seem compelled to write bios that suggest they think are they are better than almost anyone who might message them and that whoever messages them better be prepared to prove himself. I have no idea if the first woman is like that. But if her profile suggests (usually implicitly, but sometimes explicitly) that she views herself as being of such high value that only super high value men should apply, it would explain the difference. This is similar to the observation that girl number 2 may appear “easier”, but goes a little deeper in that “easier” can mean more than simply being a quick lay. It can also mean appearing to appreciate real life men rather than prince charming fantasies that can jet set them around the globe on a full time basis.

    Also, there would appear to be an age difference between the two, and I’m not sure whether that might be impacting the raw numbers (i.e., maybe younger guys message more, maybe a lot of older guys still try for younger women, or some combination).

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Passer By
      All good thoughts. I interpreted the Eligible Bachelor Paradox as being specifically attributable to female hypergamy. That is, the strong bidders, wanting a man even higher than themselves, i.e. pretty damn near perfect, lose out entirely, passing over quite attractive men due to unrealistic expectations. Meanwhile, the hypergamous weak bidders are free to snap up the passed over men, who are often more attractive than they are.
      .
      I agree that IRL it’s unlikely that Carol will get zero attention, with each man independently calculating that his best outcome occurs if he does nothing. Personality traits, such as risk-aversion, would certainly play a role. So would life events – a guy who’s just been dumped may be willing to risk it just to start his necessary program of FTOW, for example.
      .
      It’s very true that we know nothing about the women in the photos. OKCupid does some very interesting statistical analyses, but in truth there are many factors on any profile that are simply not possible to control for objectively.

  • GudEnuf

    “Women can stop being called sluts if they stop having casual sex.”

    This is like saying “black people can stop being called uppity n-groes if they stop trying to run for president.”

    The fact that a woman’s choices affect what labels she gets does not mean those labels are not sexist. A man doesn’t have to choose between having casual sex and avoiding the slut label. Neither should a woman.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      A man doesn’t have to choose between having casual sex and avoiding the slut label. Neither should a woman

      Promiscuity is defined as “indiscriminate in the choice of sexual partners.” Men can be called sluts, and often are. The only difference is, they appreciate the label. Like all true feminists, you are focusing on what should happen between the sexes. You’re complaining about the double standard being unfair. This is a dead end, as nearly 50 years of feminism and consequent female promiscuity has not changed men’s feelings about the issue, with the exception of a small percentage of men such as yourself who view female promiscuity as a valuable opportunity to acquire sexual skills (recalling your recently stated preference for women with more experience).
      .
      If this was not biologically driven, women would not be lying about their sexual experience even as they decry the double standard.

  • Geoff

    @Susan,
    “Exactly! I agree with your analysis of these two women. The upper one looks kinda like Jennifer Garner, IMO. So why does the less attractive one get twice as much attention? If the Carol Syndrome doesn’t explain it, what does? Why is the lower girl getting high ratings and lots of messages? Is my theory correct that it is precisely the fact that she looks edgy, sexy, and like an anime?”
    .
    1. NO SUCH THING AS CAROL EFFECT: First, I think OKC is not even close to defining a problem in anything approaching the scientific method. And based on my experience with other alphas, and a lot of them, I think this whole problem isn’t real.
    .
    2. SEX OR MARRIAGE? I always like to remind everyone that getting laid and searching for a mate are, at least for men, COMPLETELY opposite things. Like 180 degrees off each other.
    .
    2.A. SEX: Even if I concede there’s a “Carol Effect” for the sake of argument, it could be the less hot slutty girl seems easier to nail than a pretty attractive chick (your upper photo) who may or may not have religious morals and/or love her father and fear disappointing him by sleeping around. Easy “good enough” sex that’s pretty likely always trumps amazing sex that’s gonna be work. Or, “one Pizza Hut pizza ordered over the phone > a delicious pizza but I have to make from scratch.”
    .
    2.B. MARRIAGE: If word gets out that Carol is “saving herself for marriage”, then young bull alphas only after sex will swoop in and quickly swoop away after bouncing off her virginity shield–BUT I’d hazard that ALL men in her area who have decided they want a wife (alphas, betas, deltas, sigmas–Vox Day’s definitions) will beat her door down, stab competitors in the back and/or eyeballs, kidney punch their buddy, and otherwise do whatever is necessary to lock up the contract. Trust me.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Geoff
      OK, I’ll trust that. I hope it’s true, because it really doesn’t make any sense for that woman to lack male attention.

  • Wayfinder

    They might start by taking off the shorts that say SLUT across the back.

    I thought the problem was that they were already taking their shorts off?

    /ducks

    A man doesn’t have to choose between having casual sex and avoiding the slut label.

    Eh. You’ll get a bunch of people arguing with you over the whys and hows of that. I’m going to take a different tack and say that encouraging the women to descend to the level of the man-whore players is not exactly a good idea. If all the men jump off a cliff, you would too?

  • Geoff

    @Susan,
    No, it’s not. OKCupid knows exactly how many of its members send and receive messages, and to whom. If you read the original article that I linked to, you’ll see that they were scratching their heads as this happened again and again. It was incredibly significant, statistically. They’re not even sure of the explanation for the paradox, but the phenomenon is not in question.”
    .
    1. The “phenomenon” is completely contained within the OKC universe of subscribers. Not representative of U.S. population. In that regard, it’s as meaningless as a political poll that queries the public at large, when “likely voter” is the only sub-population that matters.
    .
    2. No way to know how many men within OKC are looking for marriage or sex. Skews the sample, depending on what you’re measuring for.
    .
    3. This “phenomenon” is an attention-getter for OKC. Free publicity. Doesn’t mean the whole thing is cooked up, doesn’t mean it isn’t. But color me suspicious.

  • John G

    Hi Susan;

    Sure. I agree, that being the ‘weak bidder’ is way to go. I also agree about the variances in what is considered attractive and how that changes who approaches and their value in relation to the other.
    I’m still having a hard time with the whole “Carol Syndrome” thing. I’ve read a lot of articles about the lonely beautiful women crisis and I’m having a hard time believing it. That’s my problem though.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I’ve read a lot of articles about the lonely beautiful women crisis and I’m having a hard time believing it. That’s my problem though.

      Well, I’m not sure what to believe either, and I’m pretty interested in figuring it out. I don’t know a bunch of 10s, but I’ve known a few, and they aren’t as sought after as I would expect. However, what I don’t know is what kind of signals they send out, even unconsciously. Nor do I know how choosy they are. I do know, and I’ve said here before, several women who walk through a crowd looking straight ahead because they get so uncomfortable being stared at. A woman who does not seek the limelight, or enjoy being the center of attention – an introvert, say – will not enjoy being ogled. In not looking from side to side, not even seeing the friendly smiles, appreciative glances, etc., it may be that they are perceived as “stuck up” and unfriendly. I don’t know, it’s all conjecture on my part. I do hear from some women (with photo) that feel ignored, and sometimes I can’t believe it based on their looks. But perhaps there is something else going on.
      .
      I will say that it makes sense to me that if 80% of the men are feeling like “have nots” in this SMP, they’re probably not going to approach women they don’t know. A guy who’s never had a gf, or has little sexual experience is not going to feel comfortable hitting on chicks, it seems to me.

  • Wayfinder

    They might start by taking off the shorts that say SLUT across the back.

    I thought the problem was that they were already taking them off?

    /ducks

    A man doesn’t have to choose between having casual sex and avoiding the slut label. Neither should a woman.

    Eh. You’re going to get a bunch of people arguing you about the whys and wherefores of that. I’m going to take a different tack and say that telling me that you want to sink to the level of the man-whore players without consequences isn’t really helping your case. If all the men jump off a cliff, you would too?

    Look, if a woman doesn’t care about a relationship and will never care then casual sex won’t hurt her in that sense. But the evidence is that the vast majority of young women want relationships, if not today then someday, and it’s not in their best interest to pretend that they won’t get hurt.

  • terre

    As a man, the only decent explanation I’ve seen in this entire thread is that the first chick is surrounded by a bunch of men and looks somewhat uptight. I’m not really surprised that a youth-oriented dating site is geared towards, well, youths, and not professionals looking for marriage. Even then, I’d basically be put off by the first chick’s leading photo alone.

  • Plain Jane

    “A man doesn’t have to choose between having casual sex and avoiding the slut label. Neither should a woman.”
    During a previous era, maybe, but now he DOES. It has to do with STDs and the fact that more and more women, and other men, are calling out “man-hos”.

  • Plain Jane

    I find it odd that a few people have said the woman in the first pic looks “uptight”.

    For goodness sake – she looks NAKED!

  • Passer_By

    @susan
    “All good thoughts. I interpreted the Eligible Bachelor Paradox as being specifically attributable to female hypergamy. That is, the strong bidders, wanting a man even higher than themselves, i.e. pretty damn near perfect, lose out entirely, passing over quite attractive men due to unrealistic expectations. Meanwhile, the hypergamous weak bidders are free to snap up the passed over men, who are often more attractive than they are.”

    Well, fair enough. But I think the original author is (and to some extent you may implicitly be) assuming equal sized pools of men and women to being with, and then explains the outcome due to behavior (bidding) by some women that might be described as hypergamous. He then seems to arrive at the paradox by assuming weak bidders (less attractive women) took away a large number of attractive men, leaving only a handful of the attractive men for a larger remaining pool of attractive women. But I dont’ think you can really get all the way to the paradox that way. I think it’s more explainable by differering size pools initially, which become wildly different in size as you pull out a majority of the men in monogomous pairings.

  • terre

    It’s something in her face. I don’t mean sexually uptight, I mean like some kind of high strung urban socialite with about five congealed layers of ice surrounding her heart.

  • Passer_By

    @susan:

    “A guy who’s never had a gf, or has little sexual experience is not going to feel comfortable hitting on chicks, it seems to me.”

    Uhh, I don’t that’s limited to guys who have never had girlfriends or no sexual experience. Other than a couple of months here or there, I’ve been in one relationship or another since I was 16 (and I’m now older than I care to admit). Yet, if I were single, I would be terrified of a cold approach.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Uhh, I don’t that’s limited to guys who have never had girlfriends or no sexual experience. Other than a couple of months here or there, I’ve been in one relationship or another since I was 16 (and I’m now older than I care to admit). Yet, if I were single, I would be terrified of a cold approach.

      OK, then, the Carol Syndrome doesn’t seem so completely farfetched. I’m trying to imagine having the nerve to approach a stranger in a Starbucks, basically saying, “Hey, you’re attractive, let’s go out.” I can’t even begin to imagine that. How much easier it would always be to not make the move, to tell myself I probably saved myself humiliation as I realized they were married, or even a parent! Honestly, I feel for guys here. Even as I encourage women to smile in an open and friendly way, make eye contact, etc. I know that the onus is still going to be on the guy to walk over and lay it out there. Signals obviously help, but we women don’t really stop and consider how difficult this really is.

  • Wayfinder

    And now, instead of being told I’m being moderated, my posts vanish into the ether, only to reappear later (presumably when moderated).

    I think it’s worth noting that as a man I have absolutely no evidence as to the experience of a female 10, just as most women have no evidence of the experience of the 80% of men. Even if we wanted to, it’d be difficult to observe each other directly.

  • Wayfinder

    Eh. That time it seemed to work.

  • Geoff

    @Plain Jane says:
    “A man doesn’t have to choose between having casual sex and avoiding the slut label. Neither should a woman.”
    During a previous era, maybe, but now he DOES. It has to do with STDs and the fact that more and more women, and other men, are calling out “man-hos”.
    .
    I like you PJ. You make me laugh.

  • karen

    I talked to a newly licensed lawyer about this and she told me that it explains something she noticed in law school. Many of the guys in her law school were married or in LTRs. And these guys were just in their 20’s. She found out that the married guys either got married during college or right after college but before the start of law school. And many of these guys were married to plain Janes. And after law school, many of the married guys managed to get those high paying jobs in corporate law firms that pay a starting salary of $160,000 a year. So these plain Janes ended up with high status husbands. She thinks it is because many of her male classmates, while incredibly smart, definitely were not the alpha male types who could easily ask out good looking women. She figures that their wives and LTR girlfriends must have aggressively gone after them or given a lot of encouragement.

  • Timothy Webster

    @Plain Jane

    You are right, I do want those young college girls, or at least one. Before she sleeps around too much. I haven’t yet found the 28 year old who has had two or fewer lovers.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Timothy

      You are right, I do want those young college girls, or at least one. Before she sleeps around too much. I haven’t yet found the 28 year old who has had two or fewer lovers.

      I write a lot here about women shrinking their pool by being too picky, too promiscuous, etc. However, you’re doing the same thing here. Honestly, I know that college
      women are not interested in men in their 30s, which confirms your experience. Research shows that the idea age difference, from the female POV, is two years. If you want a woman 10 years younger, you’re going to need to be very wealthy. Something’s gotta give – either the age requirement, or the chastity requirement.

  • Plain Jane

    @ Timothy, well, those college girls might be hard to get. You yourself say they are. Ironically Roissy and others of his ilk keep pouring the Kool Aid that the older a man gets and “comes into his own” the easier it will be for him to bag the hot young babes. Your case proves them wrong. However, all need not be lost. I think serious, relationship-minded early 20 something women might create profiles on serious dating sites like E-Harmony. Give it a try.
    Otherwise troll the book stores around a University campus. Spray some pheromones on or at least a nice smelling cologne.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Ironically Roissy and others of his ilk keep pouring the Kool Aid that the older a man gets and “comes into his own” the easier it will be for him to bag the hot young babes

      Ha, I wonder why that is. Perhaps because Mr. Weidmann is now in his mid-40s?

      Otherwise troll the book stores around a University campus.

      Unless you are a professor, and probably even then, you will come off as creepy. You might even get reported.

  • GudEnuf

    On top of the Carol paradox, the stable marriage problem gives us another reason why it is best to assertive. It is mathematically proven that if men ask the women out, and women wait for the men to ask them out, then men will get a more optimal match than women. That is to say, men will get a partner that closer matches their preferences than women. So be assertive! It’s mathematically optimal.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @GudEnuf
      Haha, the stable marriage problem is like a Yankee Swap! I can imagine it would work perfectly in a village where everyone must marry. Of course, it doesn’t guarantee falling in love, but it seems like a reasonable system for matching. No wonder medical schools have embraced it.

  • Lupo

    I more or less agree with the “slutty girls get more action” meme, but it’s not sluttiness men are drawn to; it’s more like, femininity. Girl #1 is “more beautiful” than #2 perhaps to a woman. To a man, she has a big jawbone and beady little man eyes. She also has an unfortunate nose, a tan (eww) and looks to be around 30. Girl #2 has giant soulful blue eyes and a girlie jawline, porcelain skin and looks to be about 20. Therefore, I am a lot more attracted to girl #2, regardless of her alleged slut tells (which look to me more like youthful fads). I can understand many men being turned off by girl#2’s dyejob and eye makeup and rating her a 0 for that, but objectively speaking, the real reason she’s better than girl #1, is she’s a lot more youthful and feminine.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Girl #1 is “more beautiful” than #2 perhaps to a woman.

      Yes, I was aware of that as I was writing. Women do judge one another’s beauty all the time, and we’re not clueless on the topic, but as you point out, what is desirable may be different than classic standards of beauty. Youth and femininity – obviously key concerns for men.

  • Geoff

    @Lupo,
    i can only conclude from your preference for lower photo girl that you are either:
    1. A guy who likes to stir the pot just to raise hell
    2. Gay as a 3 dollar bill
    3. Insane
    4. All of the above
    .
    This…isn’t…even…close

  • Lupo

    Hey Geoff: if you like beady eyed, man-jawed, can-tanned, 30-something probable fat chicks: more power to you. I like ‘em young and female myself.

    Someone else pointed out something very accurate: girl #1 looks like she has a law degree and the entitlement mentality that goes with it. She’s also retarded if she thinks being in a photo being groped by dorks makes her look hotter: solipsism is a standard problem of women of her description -that sort of social proof don’t and never will work for girls. Girl #2 looks like she works in a record store and writes bad goth poetry.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Girl #2 looks like she works in a record store and writes bad goth poetry.

      Exactly! And if I were a guy looking to hook up I’d be down. If I were a guy looking for a wife I’d give her a zero. But again, I’m not a guy…

      Honestly, I think Lupo is too harsh on Girl #1. She is older, it’s true, and I guess a little man-jawed, which is where the resemblance to Jennifer Garner comes in. But I see no indication that she is overweight. And projecting an entitled attitude onto her is just ridiculous.

  • Christi

    @Mike C

    I probably should have elaborated on my date with divorced guy. He didn’t have kids. BUT, his ex wife was drama. She hurt him very badly. She cheated on him with a former boss of his (they used to work together) and he is not emotionally over it even though it was a couple of years ago. The date was great, meaning we had a good dinner, interesting conversation and a fun time dancing at a bar afterwards. But then once a bit of alcohol hit him he told me this sad story. This was the first date! I actually gave him a second chance at a lunch as a quasi-date, and he sort of apologized for the drunken TMI moment, but he launched into even more information. It was very apparent this guy was hurt. This is what I meant by baggage. I acknowledge that a breakup could leave a person devastated as well. But the fact that he is divorced is relevant here b/c he has a problem with marriage now. He is very bitter.

  • Matt T

    Yeah, Girl #1 unfortunately has a very masculine face, whereas Girl #2 is more feminine. Roissy speculates that sluttiness is correlated with masculine facial features, and from anecdotal evidence, I”m inclined to agree with him. This may be another reason why men prefer feminine faces.

    Also, Girl #1 is clueless about what attracts men, so shes engaging in a classic act of projection. Females are programmed to be attracted to “pre-selected” men (alphas who already get girls), which has been proven in studies asking women to rate a man’s attractiveness when he is alone, and when he is surrounded by coeds.

    So Girl #1 reasoned that men must also be attracted to “pre-selected” women, projecting her feelings onto her suitors. To be honest, that’s an epic failure. Showing yourself in a picture with other men (even if they’re anonymous) drives down your attractiveness; men don’t care about pre-selection.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Roissy speculates that sluttiness is correlated with masculine facial features, and from anecdotal evidence, I”m inclined to agree with him. This may be another reason why men prefer feminine faces.

      This is in direct contrast to the feedback I got on my recent post about sluts having boyfriends. Most of the men said that sluts don’t have boyfriends because they’re sluts, they have them because they are more attractive and feminine.
      .
      I think Girl #2 looks a lot sluttier than Girl #1. I agree with Geoff’s analysis of her. I wonder if this is related to the age of the guy? As I said in the post, I do think young guys are going for slutty, edgy, bitchy chicks, over the cute and wholesome type. Maybe if one doesn’t need to show her to mom, there’s no need to go with “nice.”
      .
      I agree with you about pre-selection. That hand on her shoulder is clearly off-putting to men.

  • Plain Jane

    @ Gudenuf, “On top of the Carol paradox, the stable marriage problem gives us another reason why it is best to assertive. It is mathematically proven that if men ask the women out, and women wait for the men to ask them out, then men will get a more optimal match than women. That is to say, men will get a partner that closer matches their preferences than women. ”

    Its not in a man’s best interest to get a woman who is a more optimal match for him than he is for her. Why? At some point she might meet a man who she perceives to be an optimal match for her. Drama and heartbreak ensue. And if the manosphere is to be believed – alimony and child support.

  • Geoff

    I had no idea so many gay men were reading HUS.

  • Geoff

    If any women OR men are interested in what other men (not just me) find attractive, see:
    .
    http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/the-elusive-10-found/
    .
    Granted, it’s unscientific, but seems about right.

  • Matt T

    @Plain Jane:

    “*** Matt T, are you saying that a male 5 is embarrassed to be seen with a female 5 in public?!? If so, that is ridiculous. Like I said, many men pass up women at their own level (not lower), while pining for women several points above them. Its unrealistic.”

    Many women date up, not down, and many women think they are more desirable than they actually are.

    Anyways, I’m going to hazard a guess and say that you don’t see these men screwing 3s and 4s in the privacy of their bedroom. Because if they go long enough without sex, it’s going to happen. But even then, a man wouldn’t settle for a relationship with a 3 or 4, because that’s like saying “I’m a loser with poor genetics that is fit only for low quality females, and the human race would be better off if I hanged myself”.

    Why would a man admit that to everyone?

  • Mike C

    @AnonF
    .
    All other things being equal, people who have married and divorced are viewed as a “worse bet” than never-married people, at least when under age 35 or so (later it gets more complicated).
    .
    I would agree with that. Of course, with the part about “all other things being equal” they never are. I suppose one could rationally argue that someone divorced has given some indication about maybe “being a quitter”. Still, in my view, finding a good match in this life is no easy task, and I would maintain this is a factor that could end up sending a great match packing before you really figure that out. That said, I support the idea that one can prefer anything one wants.
    .
    It’s true that in specific circumstances, a divorced person may not be a worse bet than a single one (no kids, not paying alimony, no co-owned assets, no connection to the ex or ex-in-laws, no permanent emotional trauma or hangups).
    .
    And this was really the very specific set of conditions I was referring to.
    .
    She cheated on him with a former boss of his (they used to work together) and he is not emotionally over it even though it was a couple of years ago.
    ..
    But the fact that he is divorced is relevant here b/c he has a problem with marriage now. He is very bitter.

    .
    OK, got it now. That makes sense, and that certainly is baggage. You are a prospective relationship partner, not a therapist. Guys in that situation need to work through it, and then leave it behind. By the time I met my current GF, my ex-wife was nothing but a distant memory.

  • Mike C

    Geoff, I’m with you. We got some guys with strange fetishes here I think. Girl 1 blows the emo redhead out of the water. Not even close
    .
    Now based on my experience (and really not direct personal experience as much as second knowledge from other guys) the more “unconventional” looking a girl is the more likely she is to be slutty and sexually freaky. Not a universal rule, but a general principle that is mostly accurate.
    .
    In my view, that probably explains 90% of the extra attention. Guys online are looking for the quick score, and they probably identify her as an “easier” target.
    .
    First time through, I missed the hand on the shoulder and the guy in the background. I wonder if that was intentional, but Matt T is right, we guys don’t give two shits about preselection so it is pure projection if she thinks it makes her more attractive.

  • terre

    I don’t see how it’s not even close. I wouldn’t say the first girl has a masculine face but she definitely has a masculine poise, or at least her photo leaves you with that impression. It’d be interesting to see her OkCupid profile.

  • Mike C

    Ironically Roissy and others of his ilk keep pouring the Kool Aid that the older a man gets and “comes into his own” the easier it will be for him to bag the hot young babes. Your case proves them wrong.
    .
    Not really. Depends on the guy. I was seeing a few girls between 20-22 when I was 31-32, and I can tell you my age wasn’t an issue at all. I do think it depends a lot on the guy. Are you fat, balding, a slouch with a potbelly who dresses like a 40-50 year old, or do you workout consistently and try to maintain a youthful appearance?
    .
    I mentioned this rule before. Divide by 2 and add 7 and that gets you to about as low as you can go. Bottom line, either you can generate some attraction or you can’t. If you can, age won’t matter, if you can’t it will.

    http://solomongroup.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/proverb-29-age-before-beauty-nsfw/

    Just posting that for a counterexample. Depends on the guy.

  • Mike C

    I’m trying to imagine having the nerve to approach a stranger in a Starbucks, basically saying, “Hey, you’re attractive, let’s go out.”
    .
    Unless you are getting neon-flashing IOIs though I would never go that route. If you go indirect with some type of offhand conversation starter, you can gauge if there is absolutely any interest whatsoever before putting yourself out there for a rejection.

  • Mike C

    Research shows that the idea age difference, from the female POV, is two years.
    .
    This could be true in theory, but real world be different. I’ve just seen way too many examples to disprove this. When I was bouncing I regularly saw guys mid to late 20s, early 30s pulling 21-22 year olds, but again this was a certain type of guy. Now a 21-22 year old barfly is probably a different situation then a 21-22 year old college student.
    .
    My GF’s sister is 32 and dating a 42-year old, but he is in absolutely phenomenal shape, and dresses very stylish.

  • Mike C

    One more quick thing that came to mind. I was watching a Jersey Shore cast thing once, and they gave their ages. I’m going from memory here but I think Pauly D was something like 29 and Situation was like 29 as well. Pauly D actually looks alot younger then Situation in my opinion, but if you watch the show you see what they routinely pull in terms of the ages of the girls. Those aren’t 29-30 year olds going back to the crib to smoosh.

  • terre

    I have a lot more faith in Roissy’s assertion that men increase in value with age and that a sufficiently confident man can pull women from any demographic (before you jump to conclusions about me being biased in some way, I’m 21). For one, it just makes evolutionary sense; if men form more live births, it stands to reason that the longer a man survives, the more he signals his genetic value. Not a hard rule but a general one.
    .
    I think women who tend to cast aspersions on the notion are both a) inexperienced in the lives of young men, who see women their own age pairing off with slovenly drug addicts, bikers and assistant professors all the time and b) trying to circle the wagons, so to speak; reigning in men their age close to their bosoms. Once again I don’t see any evidence for this world women are describing (not the least of which reasons being that men would be screwed either way in such a world: men my age are ‘immature’, and men older are, well, too old. Alas).

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @terre

      (before you jump to conclusions about me being biased in some way, I’m 21)

      Get out! I figured you were 40 or so. You speak with a lot of authority for a kid.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      , it stands to reason that the longer a man survives, the more he signals his genetic value. Not a hard rule but a general one.

      But women want a partner who will have energy and a long future of resource acquisition to help raise her young. Also, to be honest, women would much rather look at a young body than an aging one. It’s not just men who feel that way. If a man is in good shape, great. But we’re just as turned off as you are by the idea of flabby guts, droopy asses, and soft, flaccid arms.

  • AnonymousF

    @Mike C

    I think we’re mostly on the same page. The bottom line is the number of options a person has will determine whether it’s worth launching a time consuming investigation into prospects with an increased likelihood of possible “messy issues.”

    For people with options, using heuristics makes sense, even if their imprecision leads to some false negatives (as it inevitably will). On the other hand, anyone who complains of a lack of options should follow every lead until it dead ends. Which I guess is what Christi did per her update.

  • Geoff

    Looking at the OKC site again, I noticed the two chicks at the bottom. Covered with tattoos. Alphas and 95% of all betas can translate chicks with tattoos into “not only do I put out, I swallow.”
    .
    The impact of this aspect of a woman’s character visible just from a photo can NOT be overestimated. And because there’s extraneous stuff in practically every photo, it’s not controlled for variation.
    .
    Also, it appears they’re using data from people on OKC but that means there’s a lot of pollution in the data–some girls might come right out and say they’re sluts, some girls might say my daddy is a minister and I love him and Jesus dearly. These would obviously have neck-breaking impacts on the likelihood of a guy out for a Saturday night P&D to contact these chicks. There’s too much junk at play that can wreak havoc on the reliability of the data.
    .
    The best thing they could do would be to take photos of 100 chicks, at the same distance, with no earrings or other jewelry or tattoos visible, and from the same angle. Then ask guys to rate them for looks, and either initiate contact with the girl or not, giving the guy only 5 “cards” to play. That would keep him from shotgunning every girl in the study, or “wasting” his card on a girl who’s a 10 when he’s only a 5. It would be critical for the study for the men to think the girls are all local, and looking for only sex (or marriage). That’s how I’d investigate this “Carol Syndrome” thing with some scientific method applied…

  • Geoff

    Sorry, I should have proofread my stuff before posting:
    – I meant to say “take the girl’s PROFILES out of the equation and make the assessment of attractiveness and willingness of the guy to initiate contact ENTIRELY on the woman’s attractiveness on the photo. Eliminate haircut and hair color if possible.”

  • terre

    The tattoo is probably the funniest and most tragic of all the gigantic “easy” markers.

  • 108spirits

    Those two girls look about equally attractive to me (without seeing the rest of their bodies – although I’m a bit turned off by Girl #1’s big jaws), but they both appear to be attention whores (AW). The big difference is that Girl #1 does her AW by having lots of “male friends” while Girl #2 likely does it by having weird hair colour and maybe occasionally cutting herself a little. Most men would rather deal with the latter than the former.

    Who was it above that said the men here are gay for not preferring big jawed Girl #1 btw? lol

  • Chico

    I have to agree with many on here that the 10s do indeed get hit on. The problems with 10s, and even many women who are just average, is that they have a laundry list of hoops a man must jump through to be worthy of consideration.

    First, it starts with the intangibles such as game, social dominance, and social proof. Those are the qualifications she won’t talk about. Then, he must be at least 5’10, older than her by at least 5 years, have a good job, have a perfect face/body, etc.

    If a reasonably attractive woman asks me “why do no good men want me?” I just shake my head and walk away.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I have to agree with many on here that the 10s do indeed get hit on.

      I’m interested to know the real life basis of this knowledge – offline. Do you hit on 10s? Do you see women at Starbucks holding receiving lines? Because I can tell you that I have never seen a beautiful woman approached by a man during the day. I can’t speak to the bar/club scene – and I’m sure that’s more conducive to hitting on women, period. But again, I believe that the frequent claim that hot women get asked out 50 times a day is nonsense.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Hello Ms. Walsh, everyone,
    Well, it’s been awhile since I’ve last appeared in this august forum, and since it’s snowing like I don’t know what outside here in Philly, I that I’d settle in for a nice evening of replying to the thoughts of others and offering a few of my own on the topic under discussion.
    .
    I thought I’d begin here, with a comment Ms. Walsh made above:
    “OK, so let’s say a woman who is a 10 decides she is going to say yes to the first 5 who approaches her. She may wait a very long time. That’s the point – the unwillingness of men to approach. Providing links from Game blogs does not really add evidence, as I already stated that this myth is perpetrated precisely in this arena. And again, I’m not talking about “hired guns” here – sure, a hot slut in a bar gets hit on all the time. The story about Carol is interesting precisely because she is beautiful and classy.”
    .
    For one thing, and with all due respect Ms. Walsh, but you are wrong in your definition/characterization of a “Hired Gun”; I quote the correct definition from the book The Game:

    “Female employees in the service industry who are generally recruited for their attractiveness, such as bartenders, waitresses, shot girls and strippers”.
    -pp. 442

    As we can see, a “hired gun” wouldn’t be in the market in the manner a Carol would, if for no other reason that it is her job to look pretty, not necessarily to attract a suitor. Just wanted to clear that little bit up.

    As for very beautiful Women in general, it has been my experience that they get hit on all the time, but of course they tend not to want to be bothered, and I have no problem with that – there is no law that says that such a Woman must be open to every guy that approaches her. Of course, the big problem with such a view is that she may unwittingly screen out the Men she may actually want to be bothered with, for reasons you recently wrote about, Ms. Walsh. Guys tend to pay fairly close attention to how hot Women in particular treat other potential suitors as they approach, and if she unceremoniously deepsixes them, well, that’s all she wrote in terms of other guys potentially approaching. I’ve seen this happen numerous times.

    Anyway, interesting discussion. Will be registering my own thoughts on the matter in due course.

    O.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Plain Jane aka Bag Lady,
    Replies below:
    .
    PJ: Its not in a man’s best interest to get a woman who is a more optimal match for him than he is for her. Why? At some point she might meet a man who she perceives to be an optimal match for her. Drama and heartbreak ensue. And if the manosphere is to be believed – alimony and child support.
    .
    O: What then would you recommend such Men to do? Please explain? Thanks! Oh, and the Manosphere’s assertions are indeed rooted in a goodly degree of fact, though I will freely admit that they can be prone to hyperbole at times.
    .
    O.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    Replies below:
    .
    SW: Ha, I wonder why that is. Perhaps because Mr. Weidmann is now in his mid-40s?
    .
    O: I wouldn’t be so quick to scoff at Roissy, Ms. Walsh. I can speak from personal experience of my own that it is not at all hard for a Man of Roissy’s age to bag chicks considerably younger than himself – indeed, historically speaking, this is a lot more common than we may realize in our time. My mom was 19 when she married my dad, who was in his late 30s at the time, and they remained together for three decades. I also have a sister who is married to a Man who is well over a decade older than she is; they are doing fine together, with more than four kids, two of them twins (my nieces). I think it is indeed fair to say that all things being equal and within reason, age isn’t a barrier to sexual and/or relationship success for a Man (but it is often a dealbreaker for Women
    .
    “Otherwise troll the book stores around a University campus.”
    .
    SW: Unless you are a professor, and probably even then, you will come off as creepy. You might even get reported.
    .
    O: Not necessarily; recall how Neil “Style” Strauss, met I believe it was a Plyboy bunny in a bookstore. Cities with lots of colleges, like my or your hometowns, can be and often are target rich environments and I would readily recommend them to guys getting their Sarge on. Now of course, you don’t want to be creepy about it, but that goes for just about any area of life, right?
    .
    Holla back
    .
    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obs

      it is not at all hard for a Man of Roissy’s age to bag chicks considerably younger than himself – indeed, historically speaking, this is a lot more common than we may realize in our time. My mom was 19 when she married my dad, who was in his late 30s at the time, and they remained together for three decades. I also have a sister who is married to a Man who is well over a decade older than she is; they are doing fine together

      .
      You are failing to distinguish between “bagging chicks” for a quick lay vs. marriage. An older man has a much better chance of bagging a young chick if he is willing to commit to marriage, or at least a LTR, e.g. cohabitation. But a 40-something guy in a bar is not going to do well with women half his age. 30s? Sure, if he seems youthful and in good shape, and he is successful. I recall one post Roissy wrote where he attended a party where the guests were all playing beer pong. He must have been 15-20 years older than the other men there. His “Game solution” was to stand around drinking Scotch on the rocks, to highlight his sophistication and maturity by contrast. I can guarantee you that the women at that party thought “ew,” and I say that as someone who is on record as considering Roissy quite attractive.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    Replies below:
    .
    SW: OK, then, the Carol Syndrome doesn’t seem so completely farfetched. I’m trying to imagine having the nerve to approach a stranger in a Starbucks, basically saying, “Hey, you’re attractive, let’s go out.” I can’t even begin to imagine that. How much easier it would always be to not make the move, to tell myself I probably saved myself humiliation as I realized they were married, or even a parent! Honestly, I feel for guys here. Even as I encourage women to smile in an open and friendly way, make eye contact, etc. I know that the onus is still going to be on the guy to walk over and lay it out there. Signals obviously help, but we women don’t really stop and consider how difficult this really is.
    .
    I’ve been reading along your posts here and ran accross one of your comments where you said that the big trend in dating books and the like is using economic principles and models and applying them to the relationship arena. Of course, we’ve been doing this for some time now, but it’s nice to see others picking up on it. I am very curious to see if someone will write about the very real principle of the cost of business getting to be too high and what happens at that point. As you well know, I’ve gone on record as saying that for a growing cohort of Men, the price of the dating game in our time is just getting to be too expensive, and that’s not even the oft-mentioned and discussed costs associated with marriage; I’m talking about the whole ball of wax, beginning with the all-important “first contact” – approaches and the like. More and more Men are simply deciding that it isn’t worth the hassle at all, and are sitting it out – which cannot help but to have a serious impact on the SMP overall, as more and more Women become frustrated that Men won’t “step up”. But why should they – only to be rejected over and over and over. At some point, either commonsense kicks in, or Cold Reality, and the guys begin to find something else to do with their time. In that the times in which we live doesn’t foster community anymore, but instead anonymous living and stress on the individual, I don’t see this trend dropping off anytime soon; indeed, if anything, I see it increasing. So the Carols of the world might as well get set for a heck of a lot of disappointment and dateless weekends.
    .
    Finally, I feel the need to say this: Women, and this includes to a lesser extent even Ms. Walsh, simply don’t care all that much about the Male losers of the SMP. In fairness, even other guys don’t care either. For both parties – Men and Women both – the fewer the guys there are in the round, the better, although for differing reasons, of course. I just don’t see any major conversation taking place about the “Martys” of the world and what to do about them; our species simply isn’t wired that way. So it will be very interesting to see what happens in the coming decade along these lines.
    .
    Holla back
    .
    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      even Ms. Walsh, simply don’t care all that much about the Male losers of the SMP.

      By referencing Marty, I assume here you are talking about 30-something male virgins. I will go on record as saying that feel a lot of support and empathy for men who are working to improve their lives to get what they want. Omega Man is awesome (http://gameforomegas.wordpress.com/). I just caught up over there – I really love that guy and wish him all the best. In contrast, there are some very angry and bitter men who continue to lash our irrationally against women, and I no longer welcome them here.

  • filrabat

    Ultimately, the “strong bidder” vs. “weak bidder” applies ONLY in situations where the great majority of men in that setting are looking for the same traits in women (e.g. players looking for “hotties” to bed for a one-month stand at most; stereotypical “STEM majors” who threw in the towel on the conventional hookup scene and going for character over outer appearance, etc). I can’t see how it applies to settings where you’re equally likely to see Party Animals (where most players are), STEM types, artsy-tattoo types, born-again Christians, etc.).

    Hot vs Cute: To most player types “hot” trumps “cute” because “hot” gets a guy..well..more aroused, and more intensely and quickly besides. Therefore, I think the “hot” vs “cute” issue has to do with the very nature of the hookup market, so Social Darwininan in so many respects – focusing on short-term gain and failing to see that people and things can have tremendous appeal without contributing anything of real, substantive value. While I see the value of this when pursuing real relationships, it’s limited because it fails to take into account other traits a person may or may not have. Most half-way mature people will see that beauty, body, charm, charisma, boldness, and (for men) swagger, social dominance, six-pack abs, wealth, and even the vital traits like communication, diligence and a strong work ethic (!!!) – no matter how appealing or even essential to a relationship…tells them absolutely nothing about their honesty, integrity, empathy, and compassion. Whatever generates their initial appeal is just their brain architecture, neurochemicals, and DNA f***ing with their head (uncharacteristic language of me, I know – but it does get the point across pretty vividly).

    Of course, this assumes the person’s sufficiently experienced AND sufficiently rational enough to see this. Unfortunately a lot of people (especially age 25 and under) either aren’t experienced enough to see all this OR too “high” on their neurochemical coctails (i.e. “the “natural ‘ecstacy’ “_ to see past that. Even those that do manage to see past that are still fairly likely to be overruled by that natural “ex”/MDMA, the brain arciteture of our brain’s more primitive region’s, or whatever to be able to resist the original superficial (and some not so superficial) traits in that other person.

    Assuming the person in the prime SMP-age group is self-controlled and rational enough (yeah, I know, unrealistic for the great majority, but even then I hope this is inspiration to someone out there) – they will see all the drama, grief, and all around stress the hookup scene inevitably delivers. Any rational, self-controlled person who is looking for commitment is going to look for the best prospect for the longest commitment (i.e. “till death do us part”). After all, why go through the stress and anguish of “the search” more than you have to? Such a person probably won’t go anywhere near the hookup scene and certainly not the scene as popularly understood. If they’re really smart and/or perceptive, then they’ll open themselves up to the least attractive person they can possibly be turned on by – providing they put honesty, integrity, empathy, and compassion first and hard work, diligence, and communication a RAZOR CLOSE second.

    So, in short, the weak bidders vs strong bidders does make sense providing the setting and the types of people in that setting are practically monolithic. As someone said on another thread – an omega in one setting can be an alpha in another (though I think the “alpha male” theory has its limits, even if it does have some value).

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @filrabat
      I do agree with your take on the strong bidder vs. weak bidder theory, and I think that it’s more likely to hold true among men who are not players – they would be the most susceptible to being snapped up by a decisive, perhaps less attractive woman. In other words, weak bidders do best when they target good, stable men who are commitment-oriented, at least for marriage. In college, they do well in another way – and if they are the same women, it confirms the common belief that women act wild in college with players, then look for a nice guy to marry.
      .
      I also wonder whether OKCupid attracts a crowd different enough from other online dating sites that their analyses can’t extrapolated to the general population. I have little familiarity with online dating, but from what I can gather, college students who do online dating are most likely to go to OKCupid. If it skews young, that could explain some of the ratings there, as the men are focused on hooking up.

  • Florence

    “[...] on second though, I went on a date last month with a guy who was 35. It was great. But he had too much baggage (had an ex wife), so I nipped it in the bud.”
    .
    – Personally, I would be concerned if a man has been married and divorced, but I would not disqualify him if he has no kids and no connections to his ex-wife, and does not carry too much emotional baggage (constantly talking about how horrible the ex-wife was, etc).
    – I would disqualify a man who has been married and divorced IF the reason for his divorce was that he cheated. They say ‘Once a cheater, always a cheater’! I would also disqualify him if he was abusive or had a low libido or had any other major problem.
    – I would not disqualify a divorced man if the reason for the divorce was “unreconciable differences”.
    – Some women are or turn to psycho bitches, throwing things around, screaming, having unrealistic demands or expectations too high of the men they’ve chosen. In such situations, it doesn’t mean that the guy wasn’t good or did something seriously wrong.
    – A guy who has been in a LTR or a marriage is definitely a good bid! It shows that he is the committable type, which is scarce. A lot of the guys nowadays, are selfish, cold, and virtually emotionless.
    .
    “Of course they WANT the 10s, just like the average girls would still WANT tall, dark, handsome, socially dominant, and charming.”
    – If a woman is petite (5’4”), but has been told that she is “cute” and has a pretty face and a curvy famine body with a BMI within the healthy range is it unrealistic to have a preference for a guy who is 5’8” and up? She is also educated and has a low number, if that matters at all. Just out of curiosity…
    .
    @ SW
    Forgive me if someone has already brought up these points, but I haven’t read every single post. In my opinion, there probably is some Carol paradox going on, but the extent of it is hard to know. The male crowd in OKCupid, might be biased in a way that there are more guys who are looking for sex (hense the 2nd girl gets hit on more) than there are guys actually looking for relationships. The guys looking only for sex might say that they are looking for relationships, when in reality they are not. In fact, when online dating first started most of the guys who were on there were mostly looking for sex. If we can examine more carefully what kinds of guys and what their median age was that hit on the 2 girls, we may be able to explain part of the Carol paradox. In addition, this assessment does not take into account what each woman had written on her profile. The first woman might have written that she is med school and looking only for LTRs, which might scare off half the crowd, while the 2nd woman might have written about her everyday hobbies, her “playful personality”, her willingness to have fun or any other qualities that might render her more approachable and easier to get.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Florence
      I agree with your observations about the OKCupid analysis. Geoff actually laid out what would need to happen for this to be an objective, sound study – it’s a long way from what we’ve got now.

  • Lavazza

    Christi: Women know women enough to know that a man who has once committed and is now single will most likely have been messed up by the woman he committed to, and that he will therefor be commitment cautious. Cluelessness is what a woman looking for commitment should be looking for.

  • Plain Jane

    @ Susan, “But women want a partner who will have energy and a long future of resource acquisition to help raise her young. Also, to be honest, women would much rather look at a young body than an aging one. It’s not just men who feel that way. If a man is in good shape, great. But we’re just as turned off as you are by the idea of flabby guts, droopy asses, and soft, flaccid arms.””

    SO TRUE! That’s why for me getting approached by men way older than me gives rise to a primitive, instinctual gag as in vomiting response deep from within the core of my being. I immediately think “ewwww my dad/uncle/grandpa is trying to hit on me”. I think such men must have “daughter issues” LOL!

    Regarding the looks of the 2 ladies pictured here, I think the first one looks “sluttier” because she looks like she isn’t wearing any clothes and is surrounded by people who ARE clothed. The second girl looks younger. She doesn’t look sluttier, she just looks faddish, like someone else already pointed out. Heck, go to any Junior High School and half of the 13 year olds, both girls AND boys, are dressed like that.
    As far as tattooes, my 80 something GRANDMA is planning to get one – LOL!
    Tattoes are mainstream now, they don’t mean anything.

    @ Timothy and his desire for a young college woman before she rides the carousel – Susan has suggested here before that serious minded college women check out the STEM (SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, MATH) corridors of their campus for a “nice guys” willing to commit. I would suggest the same to you. Of course, the percentage of women in STEM are much less than Liberal Arts, and that can work to your advantage as I bet these more studious and serious women also have not gotten much attention, play or lay from guys on campus and they might be very flattered if an older, relationship-oriented gentleman like yourself showed interest!

    They are also probably less likely to have fuschia hair, mutliple piercings and dragon tattooes!

  • Guardial

    Susan Walsh wrote, “Providing links from Game blogs does not really add evidence,…

    Ann Althouse, is the “Robert W. & Irma M. Arthur-Bascom Professor of Law” at the University of Wisconsin Law. Her blog is frequently linked by Instapundit.

    She does not run a “Game blog.”

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Guardial
      I apologize, I spoke in ignorance, after just checking out Tantor’s comment. I’ve just gone back and read both the post and the comments. It did provide context for Tantor’s comment, and I don’t disagree with what he says about women taking elite classes in search of rich men. I do disagree, though, about attractive women getting asked out on dates throughout the week. Think about it – when does this happen? Not while they’re at work. Not while they’re out for a run. Not while they’re out with their girlfriends. Certainly not while they’re on a date. I just don’t get when an attractive woman receives all of these unsolicited invitations from men they don’t know. Can someone get hit on on the subway, or at the dry cleaners, or at Starbucks? Yes, but it’s not an everyday occurrence.
      .
      Also, I’ll admit that most women don’t want to be hit on constantly. And it’s hardly surprising or indicative of poor character if good looking women prefer good looking men. Most men don’t have Game, so if they perceive she’s out of their league, they won’t approach. The men who do cocky funny at the laundromat will obviously be successful, but there really aren’t very many of them out there.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Hi again. This is very interesting indeed I want to share some thoughts about the “Dating Game” but this is my personal approach and I will use advertising terms (my major).

    First I think the strategy of women making the approach regardless of their number is the smartest one, given that there is a lot more competition than ever, more single women and younger women getting out (we need to remember that social customs used to control the amount of single people on the market by presenting them in due time, usually the courtship time allow for people to get married right in time for the next wave to start to get out so younger women were not as available as they are now, now pretty much women are competing for men with barely legal, divorced and sometimes even married women) so making the first approach will set a woman appart from at least part of the competition.

    Of course this has risks given that its needs to be both direct but leave the clear message that you are not looking for a quick hook up but a relationship thus the risk is that the man doesn’t understand and believe you are whether slutty or understand and pursue you with the intention of drop you at the right moment for them.

    Of course in this instance pre-screening is where the withholding sex strategy works. If a man is looking for a relationship he will find reasonable that a woman that is looking for one as well wants to be sure and measure him (that he is not a slut meaning bad marriage material) and having him wait is a way of doing it, so a man looking for a relationships is more likely to stay because of course he wants to pass the test if he really wants you and he knows that no slut test a man but beds him as soon as she can so is also a strong sign of her character. Of course the issue with witholding sex is that if is overdone the man can believe you are messing with them instead of testing him, so the way you do it is the key in my experience most men on search of a serious relationship won’t mind waiting for sex if the woman has a good reason for it and shows willingness and desire to have sex but at a future date. The problem is when there is no future date or the woman acts entitled or sexually repressed or worse if she looks like she might be getting some from everyone but him. Any negative association with waiting is usually what kills the strategy of not putting out, no the not putting out itself, again this is my personal experience, I’m sure some men will screen out a girl that wants to wait for sex even if they are looking for long term commitment.

    Also people forgot something on this posts: Anyone can up their numbers. Beauty is mostly standardized by society, with enough effort a natural 5 can become an artificial 7 or 8 (and not look artificial, BTW) and mostly beauty is the hook, going to the gim, using better products, find that clothes that fits you the best, keeping your skin clear, using your best features and enhancing them, hiding defects can and will work into looking more attractive (and this is a camp where women have the upper hand but I had seen men hitting the gim and gaining on appearance as well) but the funny thing is that even if you up your game if you don’t have anything else to offer (nice traits, good companionship and an interesting personality…) you are screw anyway because a potential relationship will became a hook up (of course there are 10 that get married, but this another risk, placing all your effort on beauty only can backfire once beauty fades or a newer younger model decides to try and get what you have). People that does advertising knows that you can have the best Ad and package a product on the best box, but once the consumer gets it if the products suck it won’t sell (of course you can do a brainwashing campaign to sell the public the idea that something bad is actually good but that takes years, money and it doesn’t work all the time) so a 5 can get to a 7, but the trick is that it should keeping pursuing 5 not trying to up their partners number to their own new number because the pool is shortened and the numbers of positive responses will be the same as they were before while hitting on lower will have a bigger chance of positive responses. I mean how many 5 guys will reject a 7 if she makes the first move? Not many. And man logic a man will be more willing to commit if he believes she is the better he can do, if the woman shows that aside from being upper she has desirable long term relationship traits, chances are he will move earth and sea to secure her and the good thing is that you don’t have to keep on 7, of course it doesn’t mean that you should abandon yourself, but keeping the number a bit up with minimum effort usually keeps the man interested. Most men are more put off by lack of trying than by the appearance itself. Of course all this is about honest and real nice guys, alphas, dicks and dogs are immune to normal strategies. In sales there is a rule of 9 people 3 will buy what you are selling no matter what you do or don’t do, 3 won’t buy the product no matter what you do or don’t do, and 3 will buy the product completely depending on you.
    So indeed trying to compete for an Alpha is the worst strategy is a lot of effort, there are no guarantees and chances are you will have to keep competing for as long as you stay with him, because he will never lack women that will try and snatch it and even 9 and 10 can get played by Alphas (Tiger Wood, Tony Parker). A 10 has actually more chances to settle down for a really worth it male (Donald Trump and Melania or the President of France and Carla Bruni) than the other way around (Kennedy and Jackie).

    Really I know this site is women orientated, but in the long run the best strategy for the betterment of our species is both Slut shame and Alpha-Male shame, that was what the feminists should had tried to fight for, get men that are stable and nice be the ones that benefit for sex and attention while the Alpha’s get screened out of the gene pool. I don’t think they would had gone extinct but I’m pretty sure we will have lower numbers and we wouldn’t have this problem of growing unmarried women, and this horrible gender alienation and wars, YMMV.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Stephenie
      It’s hard to believe you’re new to these issues, and even harder to believe that you came her after hanging out at Jezebel for a year. There is much wisdom in your comment, and I’m going to highlight some key points for the benefit of other readers:
      1. Making the first approach will set a woman appart from at least part of the competition.
      2. Pre-screening is where the withholding sex strategy works. If a man is looking for a relationship he will find reasonable that a woman that is looking for one as well wants to be sure and measure him.
      3. The issue with witholding sex is that if is overdone the man can believe you are messing with them instead of testing him, so the way you do it is the key in my experience most men on search of a serious relationship won’t mind waiting for sex if the woman has a good reason for it and shows willingness and desire to have sex but at a future date.
      4. The problem is when there is no future date or the woman acts entitled or sexually repressed or worse if she looks like she might be getting some from everyone but him.
      5. Anyone can up their numbers. Beauty is mostly standardized by society, with enough effort a natural 5 can become an artificial 7 or 8 (and not look artificial, BTW) and mostly beauty is the hook, going to the gim, using better products, find that clothes that fits you the best, keeping your skin clear, using your best features and enhancing them, hiding defects can and will work into looking more attractive.
      6. A man will be more willing to commit if he believes she is the better he can do, if the woman shows that aside from being upper she has desirable long term relationship traits, chances are he will move earth and sea to secure her.
      7. Of course all this is about honest and real nice guys, alphas, dicks and dogs are immune to normal strategies. In sales there is a rule of 9 people 3 will buy what you are selling no matter what you do or don’t do, 3 won’t buy the product no matter what you do or don’t do, and 3 will buy the product completely depending on you. SW: I love this rule! What a great way to look at rejection.
      8. So indeed trying to compete for an Alpha is the worst strategy is a lot of effort, there are no guarantees and chances are you will have to keep competing for as long as you stay with him, because he will never lack women that will try and snatch it and even 9 and 10 can get played by Alphas.
      9. in the long run the best strategy for the betterment of our species is both Slut shame and Alpha-Male shame, that was what the feminists should had tried to fight for, get men that are stable and nice be the ones that benefit for sex and attention while the Alpha’s get screened out of the gene pool. SW: As pjay’s video so brilliantly illustrates, that is not happening. America ———-> Jersey Shore.

  • http://gameformarriage.blogspot.com/ Augustine DeCarthage

    The second girl is clearly a trainwreck and should be avoided.

    The first girl is a bit of a mystery. She could be amazing – the total package, or she could be a bitch. It all depends on how gracious she is.

    My own pick would be the cross-country runner pictured in the OKCupid analysis.

  • Florence

    “But we’re just as turned off as you are by the idea of flabby guts, droopy asses, and soft, flaccid arms.”
    – Yup, and drinking is not an excuse to have a beer belly!

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      - Yup, and drinking is not an excuse to have a beer belly!

      College girls often make reference to frat fat – what happens to a freshman with a bangin body after drinking with his buddies for a year. They often say, “Ew, he went squishy.” I saw an article yesterday about everyone’s favorite topic right now: Prince William’s receding hairline. There is some speculation that he committed now because he market value is plummeting, which is obviously ridiculous. However, they interviewed someone from the National Marriage Project, and also Michael Kimmel. They both said that women are becoming more demanding about male looks, as they rely less on men for financial support.

  • Plain Jane

    susan, i think you might take interest in this site;
    http://oxytocincentral.com/

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Plain Jane aka Bag Lady From Florida by way of New Delhi,
    I don’t think you heard a thing any of us guys have said; a Man’s age can often work in his favor, not against it. For example, George Clooney and Brad Pitt are both nearing 50 years old; do either of them sound like the beer-gutted, flaacid types you seem to have in mind automatically for Men of that age? Did you not see what I said about Men I actually knew in that regard? Two in my own family – my dad and my brother in law – actually two of them – successfully MARRIED Women who were at least a decade younger than themselves. I’ve dated college aged Women without incident. I’m sorry, older guys can indeed do quite well for themselves out on the open market. It is what it is.

    As for your advice about STEM Women, if that were the case more guys would be going that route but they don’t. As you said before and it bears repeating, Plain Janes tend not to get much action because they’re, well, plain.

    *shrugs*

    Holla back

    O.

  • Lavazza

    Solomon II has his say about older guys pulling much younger chicks.

    NSFW

    http://solomongroup.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/proverb-29-age-before-beauty-nsfw/#respond

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Lavazza
      I love Solomon’s honesty. He doesn’t engage in any vanity or boasting – I believe every word he writes. Keep in mind that guy has awesomely tight Game.

  • Florence

    @ Obsidian
    “For example, George Clooney and Brad Pitt are both nearing 50 years old; do either of them sound like the beer-gutted, flaacid types you seem to have in mind automatically for Men of that age? ”
    – Yes, but the majority of guys their age isn’t as good looking as they are. Older but very good looking women such as Demi Moore can also date much younger than them guys. It all depends on how well one manages to keep their body preserved.

    “I’m sorry, older guys can indeed do quite well for themselves out on the open market. It is what it is.”
    – Only if they are good looking. I have an admirer who is 31 and has status (a radiologist, speaks 3 languages, house, car, etc) but he is short, bald, and has a belly. It depends on how much value a woman puts on status vs looks. If a woman is average-to-good looking and independent financially, she will put less weight on a man’s status and more on looks.
    We’d like a man who is in shape and in good health.

  • Guardial

    I don’t think Haley’s Halo is a “Game blog”, but I’d link this in any case.

    Why women overrate their looks at Haley’s Halo.

    In the last thread, I had mentioned that based on some experiences I had
    recently had, I was starting to wonder if most women overrate their
    looks/SMV. I think a couple of commenters agreed, and commenter CAB
    mentioned that he had seen an instance of this in a blog thread that I
    had linked to where a female commenter had estimated herself to be in
    the 7-7.5 range. The only problem, CAB noted, was that a few weeks
    prior, this same commenter had posted a link to her Facebook page, which
    had allowed him to see some photos of her…and she was no 7-7.5.

    If a woman who thinks she’s a 10 isn’t getting constantly hit on, to the point that she has to wear dark sunglasses, scarf, hat, and overcoat to go out…then she’s not a 10.

    I finally read the article on “The Carol Syndrome.” The examples they gave were strange.

    Uma Thurman may be thin, but her face is distorted, with eyes spread so far apart I swear she can see both of her ears at the same time. Her casting in the remake of “The Producers” shocked me. Putting her in the same role that Lee Meredith played was blasphemy.

    Emma Watson is cute, but no raging beauty.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Guardial

      Uma Thurman may be thin, but her face is distorted, with eyes spread so far apart I swear she can see both of her ears at the same time.

      Hahahaha! I agree with you, she is a strange looking woman. Jessica Simpson is a better example – I’m surprised she scares guys away, and I assume it’s because she’s famous. A guy would have to be really sure of himself to hit on her. Re Emma Watson, her features are very hard and mannish. She looks a lot like Justin Bieber – they’re both in the androgynous zone.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Hi Flo,
    Replies below:
    .
    F:Yes, but the majority of guys their age isn’t as good looking as they are. Older but very good looking women such as Demi Moore can also date much younger than them guys. It all depends on how well one manages to keep their body preserved.

    O: I don’t think you would want to use Demi Moore as a point of comparison to Clooney, Pitt or Denzel Washington; two out of the three have been in LTR/marriages for years without incident, whereas Moore’s hubbie has been stepping out on her with decidedly younger Women than herself. The same can be said of Halle Berry, I might add.
    .
    At any rate, while it is true that fewer Men are as handsome of those mentioned above, what is NOT true is the simple fact that an older Man can indeed score with considerably younger Women. I have just given four such examples from my own life to prove the premise – my dad, my two brothers in law, and myself. ALL of us have done quite well in this regard, and don’t even get me started on my friends, of which I could spend the better part of the day listing out. History also backs me up in this regard, and even Ms. Walsh has conceded this point, that older Women don’t do as well as older Men out on the open market, all things being equal.
    .
    Now YES, a Man should be in shape and take care of himself, but shouldn’t that be true of everyone, regardless of age? I am taking that as a given in these discussions, because really, commonsense says that should go without sayiing. The way you and some other gals are trying to put it, as if all Men over 35-40 are disgusting or something, and that’s simply not true, objectively speaking. It is in fact quite common for a Man of that range or older, to hookup with Women as much as a decade younger if not moreso. Again, I have too many personal examples to point to, as well as more publicly known ones, with which to make the point.

    .
    “I’m sorry, older guys can indeed do quite well for themselves out on the open market. It is what it is.”
    .
    F: Only if they are good looking. I have an admirer who is 31 and has status (a radiologist, speaks 3 languages, house, car, etc) but he is short, bald, and has a belly. It depends on how much value a woman puts on status vs looks. If a woman is average-to-good looking and independent financially, she will put less weight on a man’s status and more on looks.
    We’d like a man who is in shape and in good health.
    .
    O: Yes, but from what you describe of the Man above, that would be true regardless as to his age, which again gets back to my point – that a Man’s AGE isn’t a barrier to his success with Women, though in reverse we can definitely say the same is true; see OKCupid for more on this point. By the way, my two sisters? One was a high fashion model who went on shoots and the like internationally for some years and now has several degrees; the other runs her own business and also has a degree; my mom when she met my dad was a nurse; and I’ve dated Women who were in school for advanced degrees and the like. In every case, the Women had more formal education and were not hard on the eyes in the least; in other words, they were fully self-supporting and had options. My parents stayed married for three decades, and my two sisters have been married longer than a decade each. And I’ve had LTRs with Women much younger than me than many couples have been married. I am telling you not only what can be done, but once one considers the weight of historic evidence what is in fact quite common.
    .
    I know some ladies don’t like to hear that, and would like for it to be different, or at the least be “evened out”, hence your mention of Demi Moore, etc. But alas, it simply isn’t so. Men age like fine wine; Women age like milk.
    .
    *shrugs*
    .
    Holla back
    .
    O.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Since online dating has come up a number of times here and other discussions at HUS of late, I’d just like to give my take on the matter…
    .
    In my considered view, online dating is basically a timesuck at the least for the vast majority of Men, especially if its of the “pay to play” variety, like eHarmony, Match.com and so forth. Free sites like OKCupid, PlentyOfFish and Craig’s List *can* be fine, if only to determine what’s out there in your immediate area. The Spearhead has up a few interesting articles on the matter as well that offer some helpful hints as well, so definitely go check them out. But in the main, online dating as such, for guys? Nah.
    .
    The main reason why I say that is because of the sheer glut of Men to Women in terms of ratios; its almost the inverse takes place in this regard from the realworld, where in many contexts, Women outnumber Men. In the online world, it is not at all uncommon for a Woman to receive dozens of replies from Men; the reverse is rarely true. OKCupid has done studies on this, so definitely check them out.
    .
    Another reason why online dating is a timesuck for most guys is because Women can use it to get the ego validation they might not otherwise get in real life. If one understands the female psyche, this makes sense; Women are quite sensitive about their own level of sexual attractiveness and that of other Women around them, and often seek ways in which to get a handle on where they “rate” in comparison to other Women. Online dating sites and the like gives such Women a low-risk to risk-free way for them to do that. Which is fine for them, but gets the guy nothing, in most cases.
    .
    My personal recommendation is for guys not to waste ANY time on ANY online dating site, free or not, and instead seek alternate ways towards meeting and bedding Women. And these ways do indeed exist. More on this in a seperate comment.
    .
    O.

  • Florence

    Well, if “Men age like fine wine; Women age like milk”, then one would be reasonable to assume that in a potentiality divorce after a certain age, a man would have higher chances of remarrying and being happy than a woman, especially if the woman has given birth.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Flo,
    Yes, what you say is not only true, but has been documented many times; for example, Andrew Hacker covers this point in both his Mismatch and his Two Nations. But it must also be said that even among single/never married/no kids Men and Women, older Men do better dating/bedding younger Women than the other way around, and the OKCupid study bears this out: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-case-for-an-older-woman/
    .
    So, while not unimportant, Women having kids really isn’t the issue here; age is.
    .
    O.

  • Lavazza

    Florence:

    “Well, if “Men age like fine wine; Women age like milk”, then one would be reasonable to assume that in a potentiality divorce after a certain age, a man would have higher chances of remarrying and being happy than a woman, especially if the woman has given birth.”

    Most men who initiate divorce do it because they have found a newer better model.

    From Dalrock:

    “Almost 9 in 10 men (87%) dated after their divorce, compared to 8 in 10 women (79%)… Among those who dated after the divorce, more than half of men (54%) but fewer women remarried (39%). (Page 39)

    Many women, especially those who have not remarried (69%), do not touch or hug at all sexually. An even larger majority of women who have not remarried do not engage in sexual intercourse (77% saying not at all), in comparison with about half of men (49%) who have not remarried. (Page 6)”

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/post-marital-spinsterhood/

    But I think the proverb is most correct concerning men who have sucessfully avoided commitment and women who have not found a man wiling to commit to them. A commited providing relationship gone bad will often make a man age like milk.

  • Florence

    @ Lavazza, Obsidian

    Thank you for the stats. The conclusions I draw from them are that:
    1) It is less risky for a woman to marry a man older or much older than her than a guy around her age or younger
    2) If a woman does end up with a jerk, who’d leave her for a younger, hotter wife after she bore him 2+ children, then she’d be smart to never agree to signing any prenups that could potentially render her without any alimony or other resources.

  • Florence

    I mean even if she hasn’t given birth to any children, but simply due to age, she would be worse off that him after a divorce. If he just made her life miserable by leaving her for a younger hotter wife, why shouldn’t she do whatever she can legally to ensure her future, even if that involves making his pathetic life a little miserable?

  • Guardial

    Susan Walsh wrote, “I’m interested to know the real life basis of this knowledge – offline. Do you hit on 10s? Do you see women at Starbucks holding receiving lines? Because I can tell you that I have never seen a beautiful woman approached by a man during the day. I can’t speak to the bar/club scene – and I’m sure that’s more conducive to hitting on women, period. But again, I believe that the frequent claim that hot women get asked out 50 times a day is nonsense.

    I’ve never seen a 10 in real life. I don’t know where people get the notion that the world is crawling with 10s. As I said before, if a woman’s a 10, she’ll know it from the attention she’s getting.

    One of the best looking women I knew was once in tears from unwanted attention. She just wanted to be left alone.

    Most of my memories of good-looking women include their crowds of male admirers, to the point that approaching was out of the question. The ones who didn’t generally had their defensive shields on full. No eye contact, averting their gaze from anyone else, moving away when approached, ignoring politenesses, etc. Again, approaching was out of the question after seeing such defensive behavior.

    Telling unpopular women that their problem is they’re “too beautiful” just contributes to the cult of victimhood.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Telling unpopular women that their problem is they’re “too beautiful” just contributes to the cult of victimhood.

      That was not my intent. As far as I know, it was not the intent of the game theorist who wrote The Carol Syndrome either. Many guys on here have confirmed that a college women who doesn’t put out early and often will get little attention from guys, no matter how attractive she is. Since I tend to hear most from women in that age range, that may explain my different POV.

      One of the best looking women I knew was once in tears from unwanted attention. She just wanted to be left alone.

      Again, I’m just wondering where she spent her time. Church? The trading floor? Modeling? Teaching nursery school? Very attractive women (not necessarily 10s) maybe be found everywhere, and the way they handle themselves can make the difference between their being in your face or virtually invisible to the general public.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Hi Ms. Walsh,
    I won’t comment on the Roissy post you brought up because I haven’t read it, but what I will say is that I personally know many Men of the same age OR OLDER, and have had no problem whatsoever bagging chicks as much as 20 years their junior. One of my best friends on the planet, Zam, doesn’t even date Women in their 30s, and he’s well into his 40s. I know another Brotha up in NYC who regularly holds court at some of his favorite nite spots with gals again, clearly in their 20s, surrounging him. The brothers in law I mentioned? Before they got marrid to my sisters, they were all dating similarly aged Women, same deal for my dad. And myself? Let’s just say that no moss got a chance to grow under my feet, LOL.

    Holla back

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      And myself? Let’s just say that no moss got a chance to grow under my feet, LOL.

      Yeah, I knew you had a dog in this fight.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Oh, and Ms. Walsh, please keep something else in mind here:

    You know how I feel about Roissy – in no way am I carrying water for the guy. Nor do I have an obsession with young gals – actually, I’ve been known to turn down a number of advances by Women much younger than myself because I get the image of me messing around with a Woman who’s younger than my baby sister (who’s now in her mid 30s) and that kinda creeps me out on some levels, LOL. But I can’t deny the facts, which is, that older guys aren’t hampered out on the open market as some ladies here, and even you to an extent, attempt to make out. It is simply not true. I’ve personally seen this bourne out in realtime firsthand, over and over again. There’s a lot of younger ladies – by that I mean 20-30 – who have ZERO problem getting with older guys as much as a decade or more older than themselves, and that means from hooking up all the way through marriage.

    I’m just saying. I have no dog in the fight here.

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I’m just saying. I have no dog in the fight here.

      Haha, just saw this. Oh yeah, you do, but I’m not interested in arguing that point with you.

  • Florence

    @ SW
    “I can tell you that I have never seen a beautiful woman approached by a man during the day. I can’t speak to the bar/club scene – and I’m sure that’s more conducive to hitting on women, period. But again, I believe that the frequent claim that hot women get asked out 50 times a day is nonsense.”
    .
    I have never seen total strangers hitting on women during the day at random places such as Starbucks in a very direct way at least, but I have seen many men constantly turning their heads when a beautiful chick walks by. My hypothesis is that they are either shy or do not want to come of as “creepers”, which is a good thing. I don’t remember ever being hit on in a very direct way while in the US, Canada or Western Europe, but I’ve been hit on very directly while walking through the streets of Rome, Pisa and Istanbul. It was almost painful to get those guys to leave me alone. In Istanbul, some guy almost grabbed my hand.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I’ve been hit on very directly while walking through the streets of Rome, Pisa and Istanbul.

      A young woman I know had her ass grabbed on the street by a young guy while studying abroad in Florence. American women learn fast to go only to bars frequented by fellow expats. All the local guys think they’re looking for a Sex and the City-style romp.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Yes, but Ms. Walsh, its the best we got (OKCupid data/studies). Unless you got a better idea…

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Yes, but Ms. Walsh, its the best we got (OKCupid data/studies). Unless you got a better idea…

      No, you’re exactly right. That’s my stock response to commenters who pick apart whatever data I find with criticisms of bias, women underreporting sexual experience, etc. They’re right, of course, but the question is – is it better than nothing? I think it’s fodder for discussion, just don’t go doing anything drastic in response to one of these “studies,” LOL.

  • Guardial

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/swimsuit_model_now_taking_verbal_wY7whbt9rXfA2sWC0nCcYN

    “Nothing ages as poorly as a beautiful woman’s ego. When you have used your beauty to get around, it’s like having extra cash in your pocket. I was so used to walking down the street and having the young guys passing by at least give me a flicker of a look. But once you’re over 40, you become invisible. You’re a brick in the building and it’s sad. It just feels like the sun went down a little bit. It got a little cloudy outside.” -Paulina Porizkova

    A beautiful woman gets attention, whether she likes it or not.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I was so used to walking down the street and having the young guys passing by at least give me a flicker of a look.

      Yes, I read that post at Roissy. However, I didn’t realize that you considered “flicker of a look” = getting hit on. In that case, yes, of course a beautiful woman will be stared at, by everyone in her orbit, countless times per day.

      Apparently, PP is very bitter about “being on the D list” as she puts it, and has written a bunch of articles like this one:

      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paulina-porizkova/fame-according-to-me_b_599565.html

      Time marches on, and a woman who has nothing but her looks to fall back in will be SOL at some point, inevitably. I think she’s still a handsome woman, though she hasn’t aged particularly well, IMO:

      PP

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Hi Ms. Walsh,
    Replies below:
    .
    SW: By referencing Marty, I assume here you are talking about 30-something male virgins. I will go on record as saying that feel a lot of support and empathy for men who are working to improve their lives to get what they want. Omega Man is awesome (http://gameforomegas.wordpress.com/). I just caught up over there – I really love that guy and wish him all the best. In contrast, there are some very angry and bitter men who continue to lash our irrationally against women, and I no longer welcome them here.
    .
    O: By “Marty” what I mean is the type of guy featured in the 1955 Oscar winning film of the same name; Hacker discusses this a bit in his book Mismatch. My point in bringing him up and also mentioning your name was simply this: while it may be true that you and perhaps others may have some degree of empathy for such guys, the truth is, that society ain’t gonna ring the alarm for these kinds of guys. This happens regularly for Women, but it won’t happen for Men, and although we can go into all manner of reasons for that, the bottomline is they won’t. When I say that they/you “don’t care” about the Martys of the world, that is what I mean, and I don’t mean it in a malicious way. Men are expendable in a way that SWomen are not from an evo POV, so it makes sense that so much of the publc conversation is couched in “what’s best for Women” terms. Your recent post about TCF and her interviewee is an excellent case in point, one among legion.
    .
    I was recently having a conversation with Hollenhund about you, and we were discussing this very same poiint in fact; I had said to him that while I understood where he was coming from, I also really couldn’t knock you for doing what you do and why; in the end, you’re just trying to lookout for your daughter and girls likel her, and in the end I really can’t knock you for that., You’re just a parent trying to look out for youyr kid.
    .
    Now, having said that, I also had to note that you didn’t seem to have such a concern with your boy, and this dovetails back to my point being made here; indeed, this is the very point Strauss makes in The Game, that we just do not seem to be all that concerned abut our sons, that we assume that they’ll just work it all out for thsemvels. That the PUA business is booming, says otherwise, but of course we won’t grapple with what I’m sahying here, instead we’ll excoriate PUAs themselves. This is NOT to say in no way that you don’t love your boy or anything, but I am making the point that we as a society simply don’t seem all that concerned qwith the sexual and relationship well being of our boys and sons in the same way we are with our girls and daughters, and if ther’s one big takeaway from The Game it shbould be that. But again, how many people even think about such things when the term PUA comes up?
    .
    To ask the question, is to answer it…
    .
    Holla back
    .
    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I was recently having a conversation with Hollenhund about you, and we were discussing this very same poiint in fact; I had said to him that while I understood where he was coming from, I also really couldn’t knock you for doing what you do and why; in the end, you’re just trying to lookout for your daughter and girls likel her, and in the end I really can’t knock you for that., You’re just a parent trying to look out for youyr kid.

      Whoa, hold up a minute! What was that about? Is this online? If Hollenhund disapproves of me or my intent, he can say so to my face. I’ve asked him point blank what his agenda is here, and he has yet to answer.

      you didn’t seem to have such a concern with your boy, and this dovetails back to my point being made here; indeed, this is the very point Strauss makes in The Game, that we just do not seem to be all that concerned abut our sons, that we assume that they’ll just work it all out for thsemvels.

      Well, there are two things going on there. First, my son, sweet beta boy though he is, has had a gf since junior year of high school (he is now 24). So I didn’t perceive him as having trouble in the SMP the way my daughter did. He got what he wanted, in exchange for commitment. She found that she was not willing to provide no-strings sex in exchange for the possibility of emotional intimacy down the road. Sucked for her more than for him.
      .
      Secondly, as you well know, I came online understanding very little of the SMP from the male POV, precisely because I had not witnessed it firsthand. FWIW, I do believe the Alpha thing is somewhat overblown – all of my son’s friends – most of whom would solidly qualify as betas/brainiacs, etc. have all been in relationships. Do they get a ton of no-strings ass? No, but they find women who value them for their traits, and their relationships have been quite stable.
      .
      In any case, I believe that I write with fairness and empathy for both women and men. Anyone who expects me to take an extreme view – like Hollenhund, or Zed, are wasting their time here. I’m not going to be “pro male.” Lots of us here have differing views, but we find a middle ground much of the time where we can agree and engage in productive discussion. For those wanting a woman who votes MRA straight down the line, I think Hestia might be the only one.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    Yes, you make an excellent point about Prince William, and I too had noticed that his hair is indeed getting a bit thin around the hairline; Roissy has also written about what you noted above, about Women being more demanding of Men in the physical department, as have Hacker in his book Mismatch. And then of course’s there’s my (in)famous Spearhead article that elicited calls for my head on a pike for daring to suggest to Men that it might be a good idea not to go around looking like a slob on the regular, LOL.

    O.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “College girls often make reference to frat fat – what happens to a freshman with a bangin body after drinking with his buddies for a year. They often say, “Ew, he went squishy.””
    .
    Without a doubt, this goes both ways. Many, MANY pretty women are absolutely ruined by both the health effects of alcohol and “dumb stare” one gets from being hungover one too many times. (I think it’s even riskier for women because they seem to prefer mixed drinks with tons of sugar or syrup, which have the collateral effect of raising your limits because you forget how much booze you’ve drunk.)

  • Geoff

    @Florence, “ If a woman is petite (5’4”), but has been told that she is “cute” and has a pretty face and a curvy famine body with a BMI within the healthy range is it unrealistic to have a preference for a guy who is 5’8” and up? She is also educated and has a low number, if that matters at all. Just out of curiosity…” Well sure you can DQ the short guys–not that a guy’s height has anything to do with his ability to provide for his family, but sure, you can DQ any guy you want for any reason you want. But why is a guy suddenly an asshole for not wanting to marry a former or current slut? I’m genuinely worried that you’re going to end up alone. Obsidian is right, pay attention to what the men are saying on this blog or you’re going to own 5 cats and live in a studio. It’s like you’re more comfortable bitching about your situation than doing something about it. You’ve got to hit the gim.
    .
    @Stephenie Rowling,
    You misspelled “gym.” And don’t claim it’s a typo, because you did it twice. Up your game if you intend to do something at an advertising firm besides fetch coffee and answer phones.
    .
    @Plain Jane, You say your 80-year-old grandmother is getting a tattoo. She’s going to be very popular at the Retirement Home: old men also know what tattoos on women mean. As for tattoos being mainstream and not meaning anything—well, tattoos are mainstream because sheer number of girls wanting to put a sign on their body that says “I enjoy gargling baby batter” has increased.
    .
    @Susan,
    There are no 10s that any man on this blog has ever met in person. A woman who gets universal agreement that she is, in fact, the epitome of female genetics, is so uncommon as to be something people only see on tv/movies, and then only once or twice a lifetime. See my previous on Roissy’s competition to find out if 10s actually exist. However, if Paulina Porizkova was reincarnated as a 22-year-old single woman, sexually inexperienced but interested in marriage, she would in fact have to “wear a hat, dark glasses, an overcoat, and carry an umbrella” to avoid the stampede of men after her phone number (quoting Guardial).
    .
    As for you ladies refusing to believe that older men can game and bag 20 year olds? There’s a hamster wheel spinning and it’s screaming out that women AND MEN are unattractive to the opposite sex as they get older—please engage the anti-lock braking system stat. The avoidance of reality is embarrassing. Women respond to alpha, which has zero to do with looks, height, income, hair or lack thereof, or anything else. I’ve known lifeguards who were 20-year-old college guys, blond, blue-eyed, and over 6 feet tall get who were outgamed by a 30 year old lifeguard with a beer flap over his suit who decided not to have a career so he could lifeguard the rest of his life and get laid. Beer Flap had game and most of you females would have your head explode in 60 seconds to watch this guy operate. I know my head almost exploded watching it. Could a woman with a beer flap “game” guys? Er, no.

  • rob

    The OK Cupid results are easily explained by each man messaging according to his preferences, no (math-type) game theory needed. A guy who rates top girl an 8 and bottom girl a 10 messages the one he likes more. Another guy rates top girl 8 too, but bottom girl 1. So he should message top girl. Except that there are a crapload of women’s profiles on OK Cupid. He’ll easily find women who are 10’s to him, regardless of what other men rate them. He’ll message his 10’s in before the consistent 8.

    Switching to the OKC 1-5 rating, it looks like having a some low ratings helps because they’re comparing women at the same overall percentile; however, the more 1 ratings a woman gets, the more 5’s she can get and stay at the 80th percentile. The biggest coefficient in the regression is m_5: how many men think she’s a 9 or 10. Remove the restriction of range, and the m_1 coefficient will more than likely turn negative. Men message women that they’re really into before they message one’s that’re so-so. The false abundance effect of online dating is probably more important: why hit on a 7 (to you) when there’s a 10 (to you) just a click away?

    Taken across the whole dataset, I would be absolutely amazed if rating standard deviation, or % very low ratings correlated positively with getting messaged.

    OKC has the reputation of being one the more effective sites for real-life conversion, maybe partly because getting low ratings acts as a self-esteem hit. I wonder if a woman seeing the ratings men give her, especially when there are very low ones, works a bit like negs: knowing some men think think she’s ass ugly may make her more appreciative of men who do message her. That would partially counter the irrational self esteem boost women get on online dating sites from getting tons of messages, since probably men don’t send many ‘hey, just saying your unattractive’ messages.

    I’m curious if women’s ratings of men show higher or lower standard than vice versa. Some research indicates that women agree less on which men are hot,and men rate women more consitently. It doesn’t seem that way in the real world though: guys preferences vary a lot, but most women find one or two of just a few ‘types’ of men attractive. There are men, apparently a non-negligible number, that are chubby chasers (humorously, even fat women think men who are into fat women are disturbing. Imagine, “my mental illness is thinking you’re hot.” “OMG, you are a disgusting freak!!!). The number of women who prefer baldness is tiny, maybe zero. There aren’t so many female chubby chasers that fat men get annoyed with all the attention. I’ve never even heard of a women who goes for “short, bald and stocky.” It’s so counterfactual that it drove a Seinfeld episode.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Rob

      OKC has the reputation of being one the more effective sites for real-life conversion, maybe partly because getting low ratings acts as a self-esteem hit. I wonder if a woman seeing the ratings men give her, especially when there are very low ones, works a bit like negs: knowing some men think think she’s ass ugly may make her more appreciative of men who do message her. That would partially counter the irrational self esteem boost women get on online dating sites from getting tons of messages, since probably men don’t send many ‘hey, just saying your unattractive’ messages.

      Very interesting observation. It makes total sense, if women can see those low votes. Hmmm, if a guy could figure out how to submit more than one vote, he could neg away and up his chances.
      .
      Re the way women rate, it’s got to be tougher on guys. The whole premise of Game is that women value other traits besides looks, but how can a man put that across online? It is very hard to display social dominance that way – and any display of cocky has got to be high risk when it’s out of context.

  • Guardial

    Susan Walsh wrote, “I didn’t realize that you considered “flicker of a look” = getting hit on. In that case, yes, of course a beautiful woman will be stared at, by everyone in her orbit, countless times per day.

    The point is that a beautiful woman knows she’s beautiful, and can easily permit that “flicker of a look” to build into anything she wants.

    If she’s not even getting that “flicker of a look”, then she’s not that good looking.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      The point is that a beautiful woman knows she’s beautiful, and can easily permit that “flicker of a look” to build into anything she wants.

      If she’s not even getting that “flicker of a look”, then she’s not that good looking.

      We agree. But by “permit” I would say she may have to play a role in signaling attraction in return, before an approach can happen. Obviously, women aren’t going to do that very often.

  • rob

    Wow, someone over at the OKC blog got it too, and it only took 383 comments.

    Ryan says:
    January 21, 2011 at 10:06 am
    Hahaha. You’re normalizing for overall attractiveness, right? One more straight explanation of the results is that the more 1 votes you got the lower the girl’s score turned out. Imagine a world in which only those men rating the woman 5 would message her. Then the only valuable rating to predict messaging is the % of 5s. However, since you normalize for score, the more 4s you get, the more you compete against girls with % of 5s. This gives the false impression that there is meaning in the results even though it is an artifact of the normalization.

    And he said so much more succinctly than I did. Ryan, I tip my stats hat to ya.

  • pjay

    Paulina Porizkova now looks hot in a dishevelled, dirty kind of way. Hot! Dirty!
    *
    In that regard, she’s more attractive than she ever was…..

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Paulina Porizkova now looks hot in a dishevelled, dirty kind of way. Hot! Dirty!

      Hmmm, this preference for dishevelment seems to be a recurring theme. It’s got to be the association with bed head.

  • Guardial

    Susan Walsh wrote on January 27, 2011 at 11:52 am,

    @Guardial: I apologize, I spoke in ignorance, after just checking out Tantor’s comment. I’ve just gone back and read both the post and the comments. It did provide context for Tantor’s comment, and I don’t disagree with what he says about women taking elite classes in search of rich men.

    Apology accepted.

    Susan Walsh continued

    I do disagree, though, about attractive women getting asked out on dates throughout the week. Think about it – when does this happen? Not while they’re at work. Not while they’re out for a run. Not while they’re out with their girlfriends. Certainly not while they’re on a date. I just don’t get when an attractive woman receives all of these unsolicited invitations from men they don’t know. Can someone get hit on on the subway, or at the dry cleaners, or at Starbucks? Yes, but it’s not an everyday occurrence.

    Picking up hot chicks while jogging using to be almost proverbial. Biking ditto. Even when out with their girlfriends men will find a way to get their phone number to the beautiful woman.

    There’s the story of the girl who had breakdown on the road. The vehicle had to be towed for repair. Afterwards found she found a rag with the mechanic’s phone number stuffed in the glove compartment. (That’s better than the guys who leave their phone numbers under the windshield wipers of the girl’s car.)

    I’ve seen men attempt to swoop someone else’s date. “All’s fair in love and war” is not just a saying. Men live by it.

    You’ve led a very sheltered life not to know about any of this.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      You’ve led a very sheltered life not to know about any of this.

      Well, I’m not a 10 haha, so I don’t speak from experience. I do love the story about the mechanic – that’s actually very sweet. But it’s not what I would call “hitting on” a woman. Finding a way to slip someone your phone number, especially if you’re not there when they discover it, does not require too much risk. My son used to wait tables, and quite a few women would leave their numbers on their signed receipt, or stick it in the credit card folder with their receipt. And some of them were twice his age! I think he called one of them once (not a cougar), but she flaked. I imagine it was something she did on a dare, or after a couple of glasses of wine.

  • GudEnuf

    How do you hotlink images?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Use html img src= and close with /img, with the address in between:
      .
      “http://www.mybeautymatch.com/paulina_porizkova.jpg” alt=”PP”

      Sorry, every time I tried to type it out fully, it went to the image.

  • Chico

    “I’m interested to know the real life basis of this knowledge – offline. Do you hit on 10s? Do you see women at Starbucks holding receiving lines? Because I can tell you that I have never seen a beautiful woman approached by a man during the day. I can’t speak to the bar/club scene – and I’m sure that’s more conducive to hitting on women, period. But again, I believe that the frequent claim that hot women get asked out 50 times a day is nonsense.”

    I’ve hit on 10s in the past, and even gone on dates in some cases. But seeing as though I’ve had the worst experiences with women in the 8-10 range, I’m much more hesitant these days. I just find really attractive women tend to be more manipulative, more entitled, and don’t have a hint of manners.

    As I get older, I’ve been giving greater consideration to quiet girls, who I find more warm, affectionate, and emotionally stable. 6 and up will do. If I just want to get some hand action from a hottie, I can go down to the local strip club again, lol! Granted, these quiet girls are sometimes the hardest to open, possibly because of nervousness around men and physical escalation. You have to do everything yourself and don’t see much reaction on her part. When you dig a little deeper, sometimes these girls have had less sexual experience than I have, so I think you may be right about guys focusing their energy gaming hot, forward chicks.

    Admittedly, the biggest problem I’ve been having lately is finding a place to run game. The section of the program I’m in has only 2 women out of the 25 or so people. I’ve gone to a couple outings with people in the other section, but I don’t function well in large group settings with a lot of background noise. So I guess you know how I feel about night game.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Chico
      If you’re on a college campus, spend time hanging out in the common areas. Position yourself strategically in the library, dining hall, etc. It sounds like you’re in a STEM field – in that case, get out of the Engineering/Chemistry or whatever building and go hang out in the general library, regular food areas, etc. Find a nice study spot where the social science or liberal arts classes are held. Your best bet is to become a “regular” and then you can open with someone in the same boat.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Hi Ms. Walsh,
    LOL, yes I remember you having that conversation with Hollenhund and you asking him point blank what his mission was here; I was hoping he had gotten back to you on that and it appears that he hasn’t. He and I were discussing you over at Alte’s blog and that’s how the topic that you and I are talking about now came up.
    .
    As for your own son, alright fair enough, my bad and I stand corrected. I was under the impression that he was having a bit of difficulty because of him being in possession of The Game and so forth, but again no harm no foul. My apologies.
    .
    Still, I stand by what I said wrt my citing of the movie character “Marty”-again, its hard to hear a discussion taking place about the Martys of the world in the same manner that that recent one you blogged about, that involved Tracy Flory Clark, did. In other words, because of evolutionary realities, we as a people and as a species, really aren’t gonna waste much time fretting over the male losers of the SMP. Women losers of the SMP, hell yea, we’ll pull all the stops out, hence all the talk in our time about skewed college student ratios and so forth, because it has a deliterious impact on the Women – no one really cares all that much about those guys who can’t or won’t cut it, and that’s a simple outgrowth of the idea that eggs are expensive and sperm is cheap. And again, that is the big takeaway from The Game and the wider PUA industry/community – that on a whole, we don’t give a heck of a lot of thought to the male losers of the SMP and never have, historically speaking, and by all accounts, we aren’t likely to see this change anytime soon. Instead, what we’ll hear more of is excoriation about the PUAs, not the fact that they came about as a direct result of a need that before then had gone unadressed.
    .
    As for your blog, the point of the matter is that Women have always had resources to turn to for help in these matters; to be sure, yours is a hefty contribution, if for nothing else than to tell younger ladies today, “we hear you”. PUA stuff aside, there really isn’t any male analog. And that one is limited to the extent that Game by definition won’t be able to help but so many guys. It seems evolution has fixed it so that there will always be a surplus of swinging you know whats.
    .
    I agree that the PUA/Game sites and the like do indeed skew things toward a certain point of view, but the information sans the ideological cant is still very useful, if for no other reason than making it clear to Men how Human Sociosexual Dynamics works. That alone is worth the price of admission, even if said guy in question never makes an approach, never sarges, never even makes out with a Woman; the information is vital toward understanding how the sexes interact and why. And it is especially useful in understanding what makes Women writ large, tick along these and related lines.
    .
    Let me make something clear here, Ms. Walsh: I don’t think it’s your concern to take up the mantle of the Martys of the world; you have every right to write about whatever you want, and I ain’t even gonna front, if I had a daughter I’d be concerned about her in this way, too. What we guys have to simply get re-accustomed to, is that life simply ain’t fair – this is why teaching boys sports and the like is so very important, because they teach them the very important lessons that everyone cannot be a winner, and that no matter how hard one works or plays by the rules, they will not always prevail, if ever. There are teams that are known more for their losing than their winning. That, is just life, and while even the homeliest Women will have their relationship concerns discussed by the Chattering Classes, guys in the same boat cannot and should not expect the same. Yes, it is deeply hypocritical, especially in an age that proffers Equality Uber Alles – but it doesn’t make it any less true. For the guys who don’t make the grade, they will have to learn what Men from previous eras did: learn to shoulder their crosses with a measure of quiet dignity.
    .
    That’s just the way it is. And there’s no sugarcoating that very real, but also cruel fact of life.
    .
    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obs

      PUA stuff aside, there really isn’t any male analog. And that one is limited to the extent that Game by definition won’t be able to help but so many guys. It seems evolution has fixed it so that there will always be a surplus of swinging you know whats.

      There’s something I’ve been wondering about for a while. What about all the fathers? Yes, I know that many kids grow up without them, or don’t see enough of them. But where were the men when the Women’s Movement was running roughshod over males? Obviously, many of them helped push feminism through, but I’m talking about individual dads, not politicians. My son grew up in an era where boys were indoctrinated into feminism, but what happened to that generation who witnessed it happening? Did they simply fail to anticipate the negative effects? (That’s not an accusation – not even feminists saw what would take place over 50 years.)

  • Geoff

    @Susan,
    “Re the way women rate, it’s got to be tougher on guys. The whole premise of Game is that women value other traits besides looks, but how can a man put that across online? It is very hard to display social dominance that way – and any display of cocky has got to be high risk when it’s out of context.”
    .
    That’s VERY accurate for dating sites, but a guy CAN get work done in a chat room format if he’s quick-witted, uses game, and is a fast typist. I started pulling big numbers when America Online took off (yeah, I’m old). I’d come into chat rooms named for geographically close cities and get to work negging chicks, cracking jokes, etcetera. Most of the chat rooms would meet weekly at a real-life bar to hang out, and I could swing by, glance around to see if any hot chicks showed and if so, start talking fast and working her. I’d already figured who the slutty girls were by their attitude and screenname–I just needed to verify that when that screenname showed up, she wasn’t outside load tolerances for my erector set.
    .
    ONLINE DATING sites however, were death to me–I tried them for a bit when I decided to start looking for a wife and stop whoring around. Match.com, Eharmony, et al were a brick wall that I ran into at top speed. I’m 5’5″ and women DQ’ed me right off the bat in their minimum quals–no quick-wittedness allowed to be displayed. Hell, I didn’t even show up on their searches. It was weird–after being a Division I college wrestler AND lifeguarding at Myrtle Beach SC for four years, I didn’t consider my height anything more than an interesting hurdle cuz I barely had to work hard to get most girls’ panties on the down escalator. But these online dating website chicks weren’t slamming the door in my face–they weren’t even answering the ringer. Online dating sites are a weird environment anyway–so my suspicion would be that guys with game stick to real life (my AOL chat rooms were a supplement for me, not my whole game world) and betas are way overrepresented in online dating sites. Exceptions, as always, will be present–for example the EHarmony guys on the commercials look like they have game. Just don’t forget they are probably 4 guys out of 15 million that EHarmony chose to display.
    .
    P.S. I married a former NCAA Div I track athlete (triple jump) who’s 5 inches taller than me and was raised as a churchy girl. Her BMI is about 18. Cooks nightly. Hasn’t forgotten that oral favors are a critical aspect of relationship health. I run game on her constantly, in order to keep her hamster’s mouth shut.

  • Lavazza

    SW: I don’t read PP as bitter at all. She’s stating a fact that is normal and fair, but that still hurts for the person concerned. Even if you are aware beforehand that the comedown will come, it might still hurt you when you are living through it.

  • karen

    I can testify from my own experience that guys don’t just walk up in broad daylight to an attractive stranger and ask her out. I have known attractive women who only get asked out by cads or guys who already know them. They don’t walk into a Starbucks and get asked out by that cute guy drinking his coffee. Stuff like that only happens in the movies. And I’ve known plenty of plain Janes who go from one relationship to another relationship while attractive women are left single. I know many guys are going to argue that the only reason that attractive women are single is because they are picky but that isn’t true. I know I would go out with the some of the guys that are currently dating plain Janes if they were single. In fact I have been attracted to those guys but they frequently choose the plain Jane types. At the same time, I know that I myself would never approach a good looking guy in braod daylight because I would immediately think that he was taken.

  • puck

    Hey Susan,

    Good post, as usual. FWIW, I do agree with you that attractive women do not get constantly hit on. I would bet that most highly attractive women are lucky if they get cold-approached once a week. As you said, between work, home, already existing social circles, and the necessities of life (ie. shopping/cooking/sleeping/commuting in one’s own car, etc.) there just aren’t that many places where an attractive woman can be approached.

    There are very, very few times that I can recall ever seeing a girl get hit on in coffee shop or at the mall. It happens, but it has to be a rare occurrence.

    The only exception that I can recall tended to occur in a popular coffee shop with a large student clientele, and even there it was typically “hey, you’re in my biology class aren’t you?” Not a true cold-approach.

  • Guardial

    @GudEnuf: Check out the page source to see how to hotlink images. That’s what I just did. Let’s see if I learned anything.

    From Roissy’s “Female Beauty: Ranking the Elusive 10.

    If Nina Dobrev isn’t getting marriage proposals from strangers while running, then she’s running too fast.

    @Susan Walsh: Paulina Porizkova looks as hot as possible for someone her age. Her refusal to go under the knife is more than justified.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      If Nina Dobrev isn’t getting marriage proposals from strangers while running, then she’s running too fast.

      Honestly, who does this? I’m sheltered because I don’t see strange men yelling out marriage proposals on the run to hot women? I don’t know where you live, but in Boston that would never fly. I’d see men cat call and act cocky when I lived in LA, but even there some finesse was required to make any headway. It’s hard to get jokes in this format, but I’ve got to assume you are kidding here.

  • Lupo

    Susan: “projecting an entitled attitude onto her is just ridiculous.”

    And … projecting sluttiness onto the cuter, younger girl #2 isn’t ridiculous? I think you simply like and identify with girl #1 more, as do most American women who aren’t 20 year old goths working in a record store. And yes, she’s probably fat: look at her neck and shoulders. Those kinds of faces go on overweight bodies. Or masculinized former fatties, like Jennifer Garner, who is grotesque looking and built like a vienna sausage.
    As for relationship potential: younger > older. The man-pig-o-sphere harps on this eternally: women simply refuse to listen. A younger woman could eventually be lot of things that might be awesome. Entitled probable lawyer girl #1 is already something which I do not consider awesome: just from the look in her eyes.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Lupo

      And … projecting sluttiness onto the cuter, younger girl #2 isn’t ridiculous? I think you simply like and identify with girl #1 more, as do most American women who aren’t 20 year old goths working in a record store.

      Haha, fair enough. I am indeed biased against skanky girl.

      Or masculinized former fatties, like Jennifer Garner, who is grotesque looking and built like a vienna sausage.

      Does that mean that Ben Affleck is not an alpha male?

      As for relationship potential: younger > older. The man-pig-o-sphere harps on this eternally: women simply refuse to listen.

      Yeah, I get it, I just didn’t think that Lawyer chick looked so old. And I thought the other one looked 17.

  • Passer_By

    @karen

    “I know many guys are going to argue that the only reason that attractive women are single is because they are picky but that isn’t true. ”

    I know some guys say that, and I’m sure it’s true in some cases, but I think a lot of the discussion about women being too picky and having ridiculous laundry lists applies to 6s and 7s as much as 9s or 10s. In the case of very attractive women, I think it has more to do with their habit of sending out constant indicators of disinterest. They probably learned this habit early on to keep away the guys who would harrass them, but it’s a “be careful what you wish for” situation, because it’s the nicer guy who is going to be most impacted by those indicators of disinterest. Also, you have to understand how incredibly difficult it is for a guy to walk up to pretty much any woman, let alone a 9 or 10, and carry a conversation for a while to get her interested. Even without the complication of approach anxiety, 95%would find it really difficult. Through in approach anxiety and it becomes borderline impossible. You really have to have a gift of gab that most guys don’t have. Many 5s, 6s, and 7s learned to carry their half of this conversation (and perhaps much more than their half) at a very young age. I think 9s and 10s don’t tend to do that, and they have no idea how hard they are making it. Or, perhaps in many cases they do understand, and are just fine with it.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      In the case of very attractive women, I think it has more to do with their habit of sending out constant indicators of disinterest. They probably learned this habit early on to keep away the guys who would harrass them, but it’s a “be careful what you wish for” situation, because it’s the nicer guy who is going to be most impacted by those indicators of disinterest.

      This makes a lot of sense to me. The problem is that if a woman lets down her guard and opens up, most of the men who approach will be cads, for the reason you pointed out. I think very attractive women hope to meet a man in some friendly way first, not get cold approached on the street. Of course, like most women, they don’t understand that guys have no interest in platonic friendship. Women and men really are at cross purposes much of the time.

  • terre

    As you said, between work, home, already existing social circles, and the necessities of life (ie. shopping/cooking/sleeping/commuting in one’s own car, etc.) there just aren’t that many places where an attractive woman can be approached.

    .
    Huh? What would being attractive have to do with having the time (?) to be cold approached?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @terre

      What would being attractive have to do with having the time (?) to be cold approached?

      Well, obviously there needs to be motive and opportunity. A woman can hardly be approached if she’s working from home, for example. In general, in the office, the motive is viewed as questionable – highly risky. That doesn’t happen.
      .
      Then there are limited opportunities. We have to commute to and from work, which may be walking, taking the train, or driving your own car. No one can approach a woman in a car. Then, some women go out more than others. And they go to different kinds of places. A woman in a movie theater is less likely to be approached than a woman having coffee. And two women having lunch together are less likely to be interrupted than a woman having lunch alone. And then, as many have said, there are very attractive women who don’t want to be approached by strangers. All in all, it adds up to extreme unlikeliness that a woman will get hit on 50 times a day. Basically, she’d have to be homeless and unemployed. Or employed as a cocktail waitress or a stripper or something.

  • terre

    In addressing some comments made by womenvolk here: waiting does nothing, and means nothing. The only wait that binds a man to your side is the wait until marriage. Unless he’s obligated, he can at any point change his mind and leave.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Susan:
    “I’m new at the forum but not new at studying people part of the reason I started to read Jezebel was because I was trying to get a glimpse of how modern feminists were thinking …what a disappointment. I used to be a writer and a big part of it is observing how people interact and the consequences of it, adding that to my natural talent for getting people to talk to me, being analytical and being one of the few persons on my underdeveloped original country that was raised on stable home, allowed me to see how many of this strategies this works on the long term for everyone involved. Of course I’m sure some women are “lucky” and never need anything but sex from a man from the rest of their lives, but I think the biggest issue is that no one teaches people to know themselves well before they start the dating game, knowing if you actually want commitment or just fun is as crucial as knowing the right career for you. The fact that we don’t have tests to help people to know what kind of romantic relationships suits better their emotional needs is baffling. Anyway glad you like it. I just hope is of use of someone.

    Oh and I wanted to corroborate @Plain Jane comments about how interracial dating can be a good strategy, but is a risky one, a different feature might make you look as exotic and thus adds points to your appearance, the issue is that you can find someone with a fetish for your particular race or trying to break some sort of record like: I sleep with women of every race or something like it but its really not thinking of committing, like the other person that was dating the Muslim guy and he left because she was not a virgin (Total BS the prophet says that marrying a non-virgin is not Haram so he could had asked her to convert, he surely was planning to do this as soon as he was ready to take a Muslim Bride.) Oh I’m not Muslim but I also studied Comparative Theology and have a couple of Muslim friends, both born and converted so he was using his religion as an excuse. So again is a risky strategy but it can work wonders if the person is again a nice decent guy.

    @Geoff
    “Maybe there are rules for perfect spelling here, didn’t knew that. Like I said I’m new here. Incidentally English is not my first language so some words might slip and given that I don’t spell check for blogs, forums and places of the such, but when I’m deliver a work professionally I spell check more than once so don’t worry about my professional future.So far looks good, not that there is anything wrong with serving coffee and answering calls, not everyone needs to make tons of money to be considered successful or be happy and as a coffee lover anyone that serves me coffee is high on my list of people I enjoy to be around”

  • Timothy Webster

    @Susan

    Maybe men don’t LIKE approaching women they don’t know? I mean, I know I don’t like approaching a woman until I have some idea of her relationship status, her history of relationships, her attitudes, etc. It is about pre-qualification.

    It is a chicken and egg thing.

    In former times it wasn’t so bad. People didn’t travel so much, so you knew everyone in your neighborhood. Often you went to church together, worked together, etc. When you decided to make a move on the girl next door, or in the next town, you already had some fair idea of what you were getting into.

    The motor car has changed everything.

  • Höllenhund

    Hah! It’s funny that you think I have an agenda and expect you to adopt “extreme” views, Ms. Walsh. I can only hope you think the same of Jess and other sex-positve feminist commenters. I have my political views, definitely not extreme ones, by but I never pushed them on this site. I started hanging out here because I cannot name any other female blogger who wants to examine the current SMP without a feminist political agenda. I’m not complaining about your comment policy, although I think telling Zed to leave was a bit premature and a result of predictable male-female miscommunication.

    Obsidian and I started hanging out at Alte’s new blog and debating whether the current SMP is actually deregulated or not. He mentioned that your site is not the place for such discussions because you and especially your female commenters don’t seem to be that interested in the macro stuff – after all, you’re basically running an advice column for middle- and higher-middle-class college girls on how to lasso a high-status man into commitment and eventually marriage (not that there’s anything wrong with that). I agreed but also remarked that it’d make sense to focus on the macro stuff as well because it’s specifically due to long-term macro developments that such advice will be more difficult to follow. We all know about the increasing dearth of men in colleges, which will leave high-status educated women with a smaller and smaller pool of eligible men to satisfy their hypergamy. Marriage is still somewhat intact among higher-middle-class people – you mentioned that their marriage rate is high and divorce rate is “only” 17% – but it’s only a matter of time before marriage collapses among them as well due to the long-term trend I mentioned. That’s an obvious cause for concern among women like your daughter, unless she’s willing to expat to China, for example, which has a big surplus of hardcore high-status beta providers.

    I cannot give you the link because Alte, being the impulsive woman she is, got fed up and deleted our discussions due to them being off-topic.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Hollenhund
      I can’t be mad at you, you’re just too earnest about your beliefs and I respect that. If you find me worth reading for whatever reason, that’s good enough for me. For the record, I did not tell Zed to leave – I told him I was very offended, and he replied that he would make himself scarce. I admit I did say I would be glad to see him go. As you know, women tend to more emotional and less direct in our communication style. I’m much less so than many women, but you’d be surprised – I sit here at my laptop and experience a full range of emotions when I read the comments. I laugh, I get exasperated, and I cry. Sometimes I am moved to tears, other times I am really hurt. Zed really hurt me by calling my marriage a sham, but I acknowledge that if I can’t take the heat, I have to stop writing. Particularly if I want men to comment here, which I definitely do.
      .
      Whenever Obsidian tries to browbeat me into writing what he wants me to write about, I tell him I’m doing the micro, and he can do the macro. However, I believe I do take this blog beyond the “Ten Ways to Get Inside His Head” posts, and I welcome discussion about larger issues in the SMP. In fact, it would be silly of me to give advice without explaining the wider implications of feminism – it would make little sense. Since I’m kind of out here on my own as a middle-aged woman blogging to young women about keeping their panties on, I need compelling arguments, and the macro developments provide them.
      .
      I do think that some of the men here are extremely hard on women overall. I am not referring to the “regulars” – as you’ve seen quite a few people pop in and out. That’s fine, I appreciate their thoughtful comments, but I’m going to push back some of the time. Some of their resentment is justified, and some of it is not. For example, directing anger toward women for being hypergamous or liking 20% of the men is not legit – it’s biology. If feminism ushered this in, that can’t be laid at the feet of today’s college students. All we can do is encourage women to take a long-term view, and men to get some Game.

  • terre

    Women respond to alpha, which has zero to do with looks, height, income, hair or lack thereof, or anything else.

    .
    Indeed, one only has to see exactly who managed to bag Porizkova during her prime years to understand this. (Ladies: try Google Image search).

  • Brendan

    The thing is that you have to go for a quality person.

    I have a receding hairline, am short and have a bit of a belly. But, I found a very high quality person as a girlfriend who is also quite cute. But … you have to bring something to the table that is of value. In our case, we’re both very Christian, so that had a lot to do with it, but it’s a “market niche” as is any other.

    If you’re fishing in the general pond without a niche, though, you’d better be very good looking (for women) and have very good game (for men) if you want to find a general pond quality person.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @GudEnuf
    OK, I’m going in search of a new comment editor. This one sucks.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Hi Hollenhund, Ms. Walsh,
    Just wanted to reply to what you said H: “I cannot give you the link because Alte, being the impulsive woman she is, got fed up and deleted our discussions due to them being off-topic.”
    .
    O: Actually, I often save the comments I make online, and I just so happened to save much of our exchanges over at Alte’s. I’ve been thinking of making a post out of said exchanges on my blog and in light of the current discussion, I think I’ll be doing that on the morrow, so Ms. Walsh and others so inclined can see exactly what we said in its entirety and within it proper context, and they’ll have the chance to respond as well. Again, it’ll be posted up on my blog, the entire conversation involving Ms. Walsh between Hollenhund and me, taken from Alte’s blog, tomorrow at The Obsidian Files. It should be up before 9AM EST. See ya then!

    O.

  • AnonymousF

    re: cold approaches

    I don’t know how it works for 10’s, but as a 5-6, I do get approached cold during daytime occasionally. Places I’ve been hit on over the years (multiple times at most of these) by total strangers: supermarket, bus, bus stop, subway, pizza shop, mall, religious services, college dining hall, walking down the street, waiting outside someplace to meet a friend. Once in a while I get hit on by a waiter, barista or cashier. I also used to get hit on by customers when I worked as a cashier in high school and near campus in college.

    The quality of the cold daytime approaches was overrall noticeably lower than guys who approached with some prior connection. I’d guess about half were snap-quick auto-rejections (too old, too ugly, really strange, poor hygiene/dress, offensive approach, female).

  • rob

    Susan, are women judging on so much more than attractiveness? I’ve always got the feeling that there was a high bar for looks no what. Something women they compare attractive guys on other factors, but a guy 2-3 points lower in can’t realistically compensate . I might be generalizng from a sample of me, though.

    Here’s result for the distribution of means of OKC people. The average woman was average 2.5, and normally distributed overall. Women rated 80% of men below 2.5, and it looked maybe log normal or gamma. According to the women, most of the men on OKCupid are ugly. There could just be a bunch of omegas on OKC because rejection hurts less online than in real life, or the women are really judgmental. Wouldn’t surprise me a bit if men on the right hand tail of male attractiveness is is pretty log.

    Each person is rated multiple times, so everyone has a mean rating and a standard deviation. I wonder what the distribution of the standard deviations look for each sex. I’m guessing that men have smaller standard deviations, ie women pretty much agree on who is attractive, average and ugly. The conventional wisdom is the other way, and OK Cupid can tell us.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @rob
      Yeah, I’ve read before how women are really tough judges re looks online. As Geoff says, that’s a tough place for a funny guy who’s not necessarily handsome. As for women going for other qualities – you bet. We even use the term sexy ugly for guys who bring it despite being physically unattractive. I’m assuming you know a bit about Game – most guys here find me that way, but if not, you need to check it out if you feel the least bit disadvantaged in this regard. Of course, it depends what you’re looking for – if you want a bunch of NSA sex, you’re not likely to get it without being a stud or having very tight game. If you want a relationship, that’s a different matter – women seek a variety of qualities in a long-term partner. Looks is one of them, but in general, men have a lot more leeway with looks than women do. On the other hand, you need to present as confident. Women ruthlessly sniff out eagerness or nervousness, and tend to punish men for it.

  • Chili

    I second what AnonF said. Women that are upset at not being cold-approached should know they really aren’t missing much. Most guys that do this sort of thing are indeed usually either much older or give off some kind of mildly insane vibe (nervous ticks, jittery speech, etc.) And I’m also in the 5-7 range depending on the day. Then there are the guys who have nothing in particular wrong with them, but still I reject cold approaches because I don’t feel comfortable trusting some random person. (Call it growing up in the city). Therefore, the best way to meet people is probably the old fashioned one: through friends, family, work, and school. In other words, the only way to expand your social network is to expand your social network, ha.
    .
    RE older men. I’m not against dating them, per se. But when I see it I have to wonder why he can’t get anyone in his own age group, i.e. perhaps he has some kind of serious flaw/baggage that he thinks the naivete of a young woman might persuade her to overlook. I’m sure this isn’t always the case, I’m just saying that’s how it looks to me when I see it in the real world.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Chili

      I reject cold approaches because I don’t feel comfortable trusting some random person. (Call it growing up in the city).

      Exactly right. Many women feel this way and with good reason. We raise our daughters telling them not to talk to strangers, and though the odds are minimal, many women won’t risk being the next Natalee Holloway. Even giving out one’s number to a guy you just met can be iffy. One young woman I know met a super nice (so she thought) guy at a bar, and gave him her number. He began texting like crazy and she was pleased, then she looked at his Facebook. (He had an unusual name.) His profile pic was of his wedding just a month earlier. Honestly, women are smart to be very, very wary of cold approaches.

  • Höllenhund

    Off-topic: a great movie review by Steve Sailer.

    http://takimag.com/article/blue_valentine_and_the_decline_of_men/print

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Hollenhund
      I agree with Sailer’s review. That was an excellent movie. I will argue the point that Dean is a decent husband. He is loving, to both her and her daughter, it’s true. But he starts drinking at 8 a.m. every day. When she says she wants him to get a job where he doesn’t feel the need to do that, he replies that he feels lucky to have a job where he can do that.
      .
      He attends their daughter’s school recital looking filthy and paint spattered. The camera lingers on his dirty hands, and he leaves on his painting cap while the children sing. No one else in the audience looks that way, although they are all from a rather economically depressed community.
      .
      By the way, there’s a scene in the film where she goes to Planned Parenthood, and she reveals that she started having sex at 13, and has had 20, no wait, maybe 25 partners (it’s probably more). He has no problem with her history, apparently. In any case, I don’t think her dissatisfaction with him stems from that – he would be a very hard man to be married to, that’s for sure.
      .
      I agree with Sailer that the movie is an insightful look at relationships in our time. Unfortunately.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    OK, I’ve added some features to the comment area. First, I put in a WYSIWYG editor, so you can use the buttons in the comment box instead of html tags if you like.

    .

    Also, please note, there is now a place below where you can add images by “clicking here.” That will provide a place for you to input a URL.

    .

    Lastly, I’ve added embedding from video and some photo sites. If you type a you tube url in, for example, we should get the actual video instead of a link.

    .

    Hope this improves things. With such great commenting/debate/discussion going on here, I want to make the experience as easy and user-friendly as possible. Let me know if you have any other suggestions or feedback.

  • Höllenhund

    And then of course’s there’s my (in)famous Spearhead article that elicited calls for my head on a pike for daring to suggest to Men that it might be a good idea not to go around looking like a slob on the regular, LOL.

    The proliferation of both slobbishness and coarse female sluttishness is driven by the same phenomenon: the dissappearance of patriarchal social expectations of gentlemanly and ladylike behavior. When young men are no longer obligated to become beta provider husbands by their mid-20s and women cease being ladies who demand they act like gentlemen, more of them will become slobs, because it’s the path of less resistance.

    Women embraced feminism under the rather childish delusion that they can reject patriarchal roles and obligations (ladylike behavior, for example) while men will just dutifully keep theirs. In fact, the sexes evolve in tandem. When women make it clear that they won’t exchange sex and validation with betas in return for gentlemanly behavior, many beta males will become slobs. And make no mistake: it was women who changed their behavior first, not men. That’s what the Sexual Revolution was about.

    You might remember the TV series Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, a well-known manifestation of demands that beta males renounce slobbishness. Did it occur to anyone that it featured only gay men doing the makeovers? Not a single woman. This reflected the accepted social view that average women are no longer capable or willing to demand gentlemanly behavior, because they aren’t ladies who want to pair up with betas any longer themselves.

    Enormous social shifts are responsible for this development, and demands that beta slobs remounce slobbishness, while well-intentioned, won’t find widespread social response. You might as well demand that young women become ladies again. You simply won’t find followers because the incentives aren’t there.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Women embraced feminism under the rather childish delusion that they can reject patriarchal roles and obligations (ladylike behavior, for example) while men will just dutifully keep theirs.

      Well, to be fair, we were children at the time.

      In fact, the sexes evolve in tandem.

      Now you tell me!

      . Did it occur to anyone that it featured only gay men doing the makeovers?

      Yes it did. I thought it was very odd. Actually, I have a funny story about that show. My youngest brother, (beta, naturally) applied to be on that show and got to the final round. That included their coming to his apartment with camera crews, stylists, etc. He had been advised by a woman in the business that they love to see signs that a man is having trouble keeping house, and she suggested getting a cantaloupe and letting it get rotten, sort of gray, with lots of bumps and divets. Dan got everything ready and they showed up for the day. They asked him if he was willing to have his hair highlighted (NO) and his back waxed (NO again). He didn’t get the gig. But as the crew left, the home decor guy leaned over, put his hand on Dan’s shoulder, and said, “Dude. Lose the melon.”

  • Brendan

    But where were the men when the Women’s Movement was running roughshod over males? Obviously, many of them helped push feminism through, but I’m talking about individual dads, not politicians. My son grew up in an era where boys were indoctrinated into feminism, but what happened to that generation who witnessed it happening? Did they simply fail to anticipate the negative effects?

    A few things, Susan.
    .
    The first is that women were generally thought of by men as being more virtuous.  It was not generally assumed that women would start behaving like men, sexually, given the freedom to do so.  It was thought of as being liberating to women in terms of not being shamed for doing so if they wished, but the idea that massive amounts of women would be giving away a lot of sex for free was not the picture contemplated by many men (and also not by a lot of feminists either).
    .
    The second is a more subtle aspect.  More than a few men saw this as a sexual grab-bag for themselves, and for a while it was.  The “free love” era favored alphas over betas as always but nothing close to the Darwinian selective market we have today.  And so guys supported the liberalization of the sex market because they were getting laid more.  And it was openly sold to guys by feminists in that vein.  But as the 70s turned to the 80s and AIDS came along, the free for all came to an end, and what emerged after the AIDS scare was a new SMP — a brutally Darwinistic one.  That was actually *bound* to happen, but no-one saw it coming, really, because we haven’t had that kind of SMP since we were swinging from the trees.  We’ve experienced a massive primitivization of sex relations and a massive reversion to primitive ways of behaving sexually, yet we claim it’s modern.  Normally, controlling human animal appetites is conceived of as being more advanced and human, but when it comes to sexuality, Western humanity rebelled royally and reverted to primitivism in sexual terms.  People didn’t see that coming, but that’s what we’ve got.  Women who think they are advanced, modern, progressive and liberated are throwing themselves sexually at the most alpha of the males — this is, in sexual terms, the savannah, not modernity.  Yet we’ve colored it as such because sexual freedom is now the most important freedom, seemingly, to most people, even if it means acting like a monkey (or even more primitive than one, in quite a few cases).

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Brendan
      That makes sense. I can imagine that men could not have anticipated that women would behave like men and discard their femininity like an old housedress. And of course, the era of free love was a big party for many. No one knew then how profoundly damaging it would be to the psyches of women who participated. (Martin Amis’ most recent novel includes a character based on his sister, who he claims was killed by the Sexual Revolution. She embraced promiscuity, drugs and died young.)
      .
      I don’t think young people today understand how frightening the AIDS epidemic was. I remember my best friend at the time, who was in med school, told me that she believed we would all get it, and it would be the end of mankind. As a straight woman I was paranoid about getting HIV, and would freak out when I saw obituaries of straight, young women who had died of AIDS. I haven’t thought of it before as something that led to a new, brutal SMP, but it makes total sense.
      .
      I hope you’re wrong in saying that sexual freedom is the most important freedom to most people. There is certainly a loud and visible segment of the population that is living that. I know I sound old and crotchety, but it does seem like the SMP of Rome as it fell into decline.

  • terre

    Again, if anyone wants to understand what the sexual revolution was really like, I urge readers to torrent Houellebecq’s Elementary Particles. If they want to understand what life is like today, get Extension Du Domaine De La Lutte. I can’t recommend either enough.

  • Plain Jane


    In the case of very attractive women, I think it has more to do with their habit of sending out constant indicators of disinterest. They probably learned this habit early on to keep away the guys who would harrass them, but it’s a “be careful what you wish for” situation, because it’s the nicer guy who is going to be most impacted by those indicators of disinterest. ”

    I’m not very attractive but I’ve mentioned before that older men, who I am not interested in, have often approached me.  It is extremely annoying to think that you are going to go to a coffee shop and work on homework, or go to a book store and spend a lazy Sunday afternoon alone with an herbal tea and good book on those comfy chairs, or even just needing to run into a drug store to pick up tampons real quick, and have these simply, everyday situations where you really just want to be left alone, perhaps you may also be suffering from depression or sadness over a lost loved one, and all of a sudden some dude things its the right time to invade your personal space, unsolicited, mind you.  Then, no matter how you try to get out of that situation, you are deemed “bitch” despite the fact that you may have just a second prior wiped a tear from your eye because your Grandpa died!

    For this reaons I recommend internet dating sites.  They are not invasive.  Night spots that are known for being “meat markets” are also fair game.  But approaching during the day when we want to get things done or just be alone with our feelings………………… NO.

    If myself has a Plain Jane has to experience this from time to time from men old enough to be my father, I can just imagine what a very beautiful woman must go through while she’s shopping for toilet paper!

  • terre

    Men, if there’s one thing you can learn from these women commenting here, it’s that you’ll never, ever win either way if you try to be careful. Don’t approach them: they’re suffering from the Carol Syndrome. Approach them: you’re intruding on ~their space~. Forsooth.

  • Höllenhund

    Brendan, I think you misread her question, which was specifically about the husbands whose sons and wives were first affected by feminism.
    The most likely explanation is that the social legitimacy of the patriarchal system has collapsed by the time 2nd wave feminism started making inroads. This was largely the result of the two world wars – which also killed off a large chunk of alpha males, leaving Western societies with a higher % of betas -, the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement. All these robbed conservative white betas from their social status and influence. Most of them were not yet betaized but they were demoralized. Having been branded as society’s scapegoats, they no longer believed they had the right to decide social norms so they were powerless to resist feminist demands.
     

  • Brendan

    But approaching during the day when we want to get things done or just be alone with our feelings………………… NO.

    Which relegates dating to internet dating sites and singles bars.  Great.
    .
    I met my current GF with a cold approach.  Worked quite well.

  • Brendan

    The most likely explanation is that the social legitimacy of the patriarchal system has collapsed by the time 2nd wave feminism started making inroads. This was largely the result of the two world wars – which also killed off a large chunk of alpha males, leaving Western societies with a higher % of betas -, the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement. All these robbed conservative white betas from their social status and influence. Most of them were not yet betaized but they were demoralized. Having been branded as society’s scapegoats, they no longer believed they had the right to decide social norms so they were powerless to resist feminist demands.

    Perhaps, but I think the factors I mentioned also played a role in individual men’s thinking about the issue — whether single or married, fathers or not.
    .
    In general in the West there was a collapse of cultural confidence following the devastation of WWII, that’s correct.  More prominently in Europe. as we can easily see today, but also in the US.  Yet there were many men who openly touted feminism during the 60s and 70s, and were not the “cowed” ones.

  • Plain Jane

    @Geof, Gudenuf, Mike C or whoever it was way further up who argued when I said a 5 guy has no reason to be “embarrassed in public” with a 5 girl by saying 5 guys don’t want to date 3 girls, that wasn’t my point.  My point was – a 5 guy and a 5 girl are a perfect match.  Nobody is going to be thinking “what does he/she see in him/her???”  Everyone will be thinking, “yeah, that makes sense, good match”.
    A 5 guy on the other hand with an 8 girl, people are always gonna be looking at the couple in a funny way and they guy is going to be highly insecure.  The girl is also gonna be thinking, “yeah, I can do better”.
    Not to say the 5 guy is not “quality” (as you implied that a non-good-looking woman is “low quality”.  Quality is character, not looks.  But I’ve seen these dynamics play out with otherwise good quality but not good looking guys and it is sad.  A lot of heartbreak and insecurity could have been avoided if they shot within their own level.
    ——
    @ Stephanie Rowling regarding interracial.  I know what you mean.  But that has to do more with “interCULTURAL” and “interRELIGIOUS” than interRACIAL.
    I’ve dated intercultural before and came up against those issues a few times but not every time.
    Dating within my own national culture but of another race – I didn’t experience those issues at all.
    —–
    @Susan, I think Paulina has aged gracefully and naturally.  I don’t see what’s wrong with the way she looks at all.  She looks good for age!

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Re Paulina Poriskova:
      I totally respect her decision to not have plastic surgery. I consider her a beautiful woman. However, she has that fine, porcelain skin that wrinkles easily. She looks her age, and there is nothing wrong with that. But I bet Roissy wouldn’t bang her.
      .
      By the way, the model I always thought was pure perfection was Karen Graham, who was the face of Estee Lauder for years. She’s also an expert fly fisherman. Who knew?
      Karen Graham

      Grace Kelly also has to be way up there:
      Grace Kelly

  • Geoff

    @Hollenhund, “This was largely the result of the two world wars – which also killed off a large chunk of alpha males, leaving Western societies with a higher % of betas -, the Vietnam War and the civil rights movement. All these robbed conservative white betas from their social status and influence.”
    .
    – Hollenhund, Let’s also not forget the staggering impact of the 19th amendment.

  • Mike C

    @Geof, Gudenuf, Mike C or whoever it was way further up who argued when I said a 5 guy has no reason to be “embarrassed in public” with a 5 girl by saying 5 guys

    Wasn’t me.  Think it was Matt T, but if you are going to quote and attribute something, it is simply good form to go find who rather then just make something up.
     
    Some of these comments/thoughts are taking on an almost surreal tone.  Women complaining because they can’t get boyfriends, and then in the very next breath complaining about guys cold approaching.
     
    Couple of things.  A guy who is going to be successful and broaden his choices/options has to cold approach.  No ifs, ands, or buts about it.  I cold approached my current GF although I had been getting a few IOIs.
     
    Meeting someone through friends, or friends of friends, or family, or whatever is way too small a pool to fish in.  College is different as social networks and gatherings provide plenty of options, but once you enter the real-world as a guy you are going to have to cold approach.
     
    Internet dating is a total non-starter for guys.  Generally speaking, it gives women way too much power to eliminate off the bat, and gives no chance for a guys personality to attract.  You think Neil Strauss would have landed Lisa through Internet dating?  Not in a million years!  You think Mystery would pull anything off an Internet profile?  Guys generate interest/attraction through conversation.  You have no chance if the girl eliminates you right off the bat because you are 5’7″ instead of 6’2″.

  • terre

    I do think that some of the men here are extremely hard on women overall. I am not referring to the “regulars” – as you’ve seen quite a few people pop in and out. That’s fine, I appreciate their thoughtful comments, but I’m going to push back some of the time. Some of their resentment is justified, and some of it is not. For example, directing anger toward women for being hypergamous or liking 20% of the men is not legit – it’s biology. If feminism ushered this in, that can’t be laid at the feet of today’s college students. All we can do is encourage women to take a long-term view, and men to get some Game.

    Susan, a society predicated on hypergamy is not sustainable. You really ought to read Sailer’s post on plow cultures to understand why this is the case.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Susan, a society predicated on hypergamy is not sustainable. You really ought to read Sailer’s post on plow cultures to understand why this is the case.

      Oh, I get it. It’s not hard to do the math. That’s why I frequently advise thinking with the cerebral cortex instead of the hindbrain ;)

  • Mike C

    @Susan,
     
    Really like the new comment system.  Finally, you can get line breaks without having to put those stupid periods in.  That was so annoying.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C
      We have line breaks now? Hallellujah!

  • Mike C

    @Susan,
     
    Curious on something.  I had thought you knew or interacted with a good number of quite attractive 20-somethings.  This debate on whether or not they get approached often appears to be taking on an enigmatic tone.  Couldn’t you simply ask a bunch of  them on how often total male strangers start up conversations.
     
    I’d bet for the truly super attractive, 8+ it isn’t that high simply because most men lack the confidence and boldness to approach them.

  • Timothy Webster

    @Mike C
    I know some guys, who are on the shorter, uglier side of things.  And they get laid like CRAZY from Plenty of Fish.  I don’t know what they are doing.  I think one is banging uglies, the other has his body covered with tattoos, and posts sassy things like he lists his career as “Criminal”, and his description is “Ambitious, so you better not get in my way if you want to have a relationship with me.”  Guy gets laid every couple nights by a new girl.  Not uglies either.
    These guys do have “alpha” attitude, and they are able to convey/portray it on the web.  Not sure HOW they are doing it, but they are.  And it is working.  For them.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      he lists his career as “Criminal”, and his description is “Ambitious, so you better not get in my way if you want to have a relationship with me.”

      Haha! Man, you have to give him credit if it’s working! Ugh, I’d like to slap every one of those women upside the head.

  • Mike C

    Therefore, the best way to meet people is probably the old fashioned one: through friends, family, work, and school.

    Work – Rule 1.  NEVER EVER EVER SHIT WHERE YOU EAT.  So scratch work off the list.  Only an idiot or someone wanting to find a different job considers relationships at work.
     
    School – If you are out of school, obviously a non-starter
     
    Friends and family – Very limited opportunity set.
     
     

  • Mike C

    @Mike C
    I know some guys, who are on the shorter, uglier side of things.  And they get laid like CRAZY from Plenty of Fish.  I don’t know what they are doing.  I think one is banging uglies, the other has his body covered with tattoos, and posts sassy things like he lists his career as “Criminal”, and his description is “Ambitious, so you better not get in my way if you want to have a relationship with me.”  Guy gets laid every couple nights by a new girl.  Not uglies either
    .

    You seen any pics on the second one.  Count me as skeptical.  I’d bet a good chunk of change these guys are banging 3-5s, probably not even 5s.  The second one looks like he is successfully sending out the “badboy” image through his online profile but still that is going to be harder to do on the Internet than in person.

  • terre

    Susan, I wasn’t asking what the odds of being cold approached were. I was asking what being attractive has to do with it.

  • Mike C

    Honestly, women are smart to be very, very wary of cold approaches.

    I’m not sure we are thinking of the same thing here.  What if I ride the subway every day, and we’ve seen each other a few times, and then finally I strike up a conversation.  Is that a cold approach?  I’m guessing you are talking total strangers you’ve never seen before.  Still, the math is the math.  Once either a guy or girl has ruled out cold approaches, you’ve just shrunk your options by many orders of magnitude.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Mike C
      Good call to ask for clarification on the cold approach thing. As you know, I’m always exhorting women to make eye contact, smile and offer encouragement. Obviously, that’s about inviting an approach. I also share regularly that the fourth most common way for people to meet is random encounters. As you point out, work, school, and friends of friends can represent a small pool of people. Random encounters are a key part of any dating strategy. As always, the line a guy walks between being perceived as attractive vs. creepy is a fine one. You mentioned that you got IOI’s from your GF – obviously, she was prepared for you to approach.

      I agree that women who look straight ahead, not open to meeting a stranger, are shooting themselves in the foot. I think we got off track here a bit because we started out discussing The Carol Syndrome – or how extremely attractive women cope with either constant male attention, or the lack of it. But that won’t be the case for most people.

      There is a real safety issue. I would encourage any woman who has met an attractive stranger to take basic precautions at first – meet him out, don’t rely on him for transportation, etc. And don’t go to his apartment! But that would hold true for anyone you met who couldn’t be vouched for by someone else. By the way, that’s thought to be a big factor in promoting hookup culture – in college, nearly everyone can be “vouched for” by someone you know, even if they’re a douchebag. That gets much more difficult after college. And that’s a good thing.

  • Brendan

    Work – Rule 1.  NEVER EVER EVER SHIT WHERE YOU EAT.  So scratch work off the list.  Only an idiot or someone wanting to find a different job considers relationships at work.
    The other phrase is “don’t find your honey where you make your money”.  It’s almost always stupid, and someone almost always either loses their job or ends up changing jobs for reasons related to the relationship or its demise.  It’s an obvious place to meet people, as we spend most of our time there, but it’s also a very stupid place.  However, it’s the most common place to find an affair partner — precisely because of the accessibility.

  • Timothy Webster

    @Chili
    Your comments about older men AND cold approaches are on target; it does make people wonder what is wrong with him if he isn’t with someone his own age.  It could be as simple as he had a failed relationship because of bad choices made early in life.
    Meeting people in social settings, through family and friends, really is the best way.  You can find out these things about the guy without any pressure to date.  Then if he approaches you, it isn’t so wierd.  You might even have been putting out the attraction vibes for him ahead of time, because you are comfortable around him and have seen some of his good qualities.

  • Mike C

    But when I see it I have to wonder why he can’t get anyone in his own age group, i.e. perhaps he has some kind of serious flaw/baggage that he thinks the naivete of a young woman might persuade her to overlook. I’m sure this isn’t always the case, I’m just saying that’s how it looks to me when I see it in the real world.

    Are you new here?  I thought you’ve read enough to know what men generally find sexually attractive.  Men don’t prefer younger women because “he can’t get anyone in his own age group”.  Men prefer younger women because sexual attraction is primarily visual and the typical 22-25 year old is going to look much better visually then the typical 40-year old.  Roissy had a classic post on this, I think it was titled 21 versus 35 or something like that.
    Now this is a moot point, because 99% of 30-40 year old guys have no chance to get with 22-28 year olds so the default option is going to be “someone in his own age group”.  You don’t see Hugh Hefner cavorting with octogenarians.  Now he is paying for it, and they are mutually using each other, but the point is ALL men prefer younger women from a purely sexual/physical standpoint, although a 30-35 year old can bring alot of stuff to the table that the typical 22 year old cannot.

  • Matt T

    @Plain Jane, Susan
    The problem with your (PJ) assertion is that, while women are judged purely on their looks, men are judged on a lot of things: charisma, wit, social status, and looks, etc, and very little of that is immediately obvious to outsiders, many of whom don’t even care.
    Anyways, men don’t want relationships with mediocre women (though they will gladly bang them). For the same reason that women don’t want sex with betas (though they will gladly manipulate them for material/emotional gain and LJBF them later). It’s just biology. And just as women are hypergamous, always looking to trade up, so are men.
     
     
     

  • Höllenhund

    For example, directing anger toward women for being hypergamous or liking 20% of the men is not legit – it’s biology.
    The situation is a bit more complex than that. I think if women were honest about their hypergamy and simply stated that they are only sexually attracted to 20% of men, most men would simply shrug and be OK with it. But women never do that; they dislike any clarity because it makes avoidance of responsibility more difficult. They also know that 80% of men wouldn’t invest anything in them in that case. They say one thing and do another, obfuscate everything, spread complete BS about their own sexual preferences due to dishonesty or solipsism and vehemently deny that hypergamy even exists.
    I also see double standards in effect. Women consider themselves justified in despising men’s desire for sexual variety and take it as self-evident that strict social controls should exist to rein it in. On the other hand, they think their own sexual choices are always justified and they’re totally OK with a system which robbed men of all legal means of mitigating female hypergamy.
    All in all, I have to conclude that the anger you’re talking about is at least understandable.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      But women never do that; they dislike any clarity because it makes avoidance of responsibility more difficult. They also know that 80% of men wouldn’t invest anything in them in that case. They say one thing and do another, obfuscate everything, spread complete BS about their own sexual preferences due to dishonesty or solipsism and vehemently deny that hypergamy even exists.

      This won’t make women look any better, but honestly, few of us even understand it. We don’t know what hypergamy is. Do we want a hot guy? Yeah! Do we want him to be ambitious and successful? Of course! But when you start talking about preselection, social dominance, DHV – you’re sailing over most women’s heads. We don’t understand it, we just feel it. I don’t think it’s dishonest, and I don’t think most women are calculating. We’ve just never been called upon to be that introspective, until recently. Many women will resist the truth – we see it with feminists, with Lady Raine, etc. But when I discuss these matters with my “focus groups” they laugh in recognition – they know what’s up once it’s been pointed out to them. The truth is, neither sex has much experience standing in the other’s shoes.

  • Mike C

    I know I sound old and crotchety, but it does seem like the SMP of Rome as it fell into decline.

    Look on the bright side…Rome TOOK HUNDREDS OF YEARS to really completely fall apart.  If the U.S. is in a societal decline, you and I will both be dead before it has one iota of impact on our day to day lives.

  • Mike C

    @AnonF
     
    BTW, just gotta say I really dig a woman who whips out “heuristics”.  I’m guessing you might be a business/finance type or some other high caliber grad degree.
     
    Now we all use heuristics in our lives as time savers.  A thorough investigation of every individual case/situation is impossible, but the danger is of using a heuristic that isn’t applicable or does lead to a very high error rate in decision making.

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    Obsidian,
    Plain Jane is doing an awesome job here, IMO. She has kept the same name throughout – so no more Bad Lady jabs. She is trying, and succeeding to engage in honest and intelligent debate, and I value her perspective. I have taken her out of moderation. Jane knows that if she goes too far afield, or starts talking too much about South Asia, she will run into trouble with me. We have an understanding. So don’t make fun. She’s welcome here.
    .
    I’m deleting your reference to her personal life, as she has not shared that here, and it’s not relevant to the discussion.

  • Höllenhund

    Rome TOOK HUNDREDS OF YEARS to really completely fall apart.
    That’s a good point but it seems historical change is more rapid nowadays, probably due to technological progress. For example, it only took the West 3-4 decades to arrive at the current SMP. Regimes can also experience rapid unforeseen implosion and collapse. The military and economic potential of the USSR peaked in the mid-’70s, and we all know what happened later.
    We should also keep in mind the current West is much more vulnerable to economic and environmental shocks than the Roman Empire was. The population is heavily dependent on cheap and easily transported energy (electricity, natural gas, oil), safe trade routes and government services like welfare. The disruption of any of those could have enormous repercussions.
    Most citizens of the Roman Empire, on the other hand, were economically self-sufficient: they grew their own food, had no debt, worked at home etc. They were much more prepared to cope. (In fact, the bread & circuses urban crowd didn’t survive the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.) Small-scale stuff like an EMP attack, coordinated hacker/terrorist attacks or incread naval piracy could all do enormous damage to any Western society. Before its collapse, the Roman Empire experienced crises, internal rebellions and Barbarian attacks that would make WW2 or the Great Depression look like a walk in the park. Anything on the same scale would do us in fast.
    This was completely off-topic. Oh well…

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Hi Ms. Walsh,
    Replies below:

    SW: Obsidian,
    Plain Jane is doing an awesome job here, IMO. She has kept the same name throughout – so no more Bad Lady jabs.

    O: I didn’t call her “Bad Lady” I called her “Bag Lady” and I did that for a reason, because I want it known that she’s old wine in new skins – same sh*t different day, LOL. I haven’t said anything that was wrong, and I like to be on the side of right than inaccurate. You of course may differ.

    SW: She is trying, and succeeding to engage in honest and intelligent debate, and I value her perspective.

    O: Funny, how quite a few of your regular commentariat does not.

    SW: I have taken her out of moderation.

    O: So you do know who it is – and thus my calling her out was in fact, accurate?

    SW: Jane knows that if she goes too far afield, or starts talking too much about South Asia, she will run into trouble with me. We have an understanding. So don’t make fun. She’s welcome here.

    O: I’m not making fun. I am telling the truth, which can and often does hurt.
    .
    SW: I’m deleting your reference to her personal life, as she has not shared that here, and it’s not relevant to the discussion.

    O: I beg to differ, but then we’ve always had a difference of opinion when it comes to white knuckle convo…nor is it the first time you’ve deleted certain comments of mine, like the recent posts I put up here. That’s cool though; like I said before, we have an understanding.

    Which reminds me, I need to address something you said upthread…

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obs

      …nor is it the first time you’ve deleted certain comments of mine, like the recent posts I put up here. That’s cool though; like I said before, we have an understanding.

      What? No way! The only other comment I deleted by you had to do with another reader, and a reference to her sexual history – staying with a bad guy. What do you think is missing?

  • Timothy Webster

    @Mike C
    The expectation is that a single older man is single because he couldn’t have a relationship.  That is an outdated idea, because so many relationships break up before the 5 year mark.  But yes, if a man gets to a certain age and isn’t able to sustain a relationship, that does make him suspect.
    So, how to communicate that you only had one relationship, wasn’t your fault that it ended, when you are being ruled out for being an “old man” before you open your mouth?  You can’t.  Best to be in social situations where people can get to know and like each other.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Hi Ms. Walsh,
    The following comment of yours was something that I wanted to respond to:

    “Whenever Obsidian tries to browbeat me into writing what he wants me to write about, I tell him I’m doing the micro, and he can do the macro. However, I believe I do take this blog beyond the “Ten Ways to Get Inside His Head” posts, and I welcome discussion about larger issues in the SMP. In fact, it would be silly of me to give advice without explaining the wider implications of feminism – it would make little sense. Since I’m kind of out here on my own as a middle-aged woman blogging to young women about keeping their panties on, I need compelling arguments, and the macro developments provide them.

    O: Actually I am very glad you brought this up Ms. Walsh, and actually goes to both my earlier comments along these lines upthread, and as well to the convo I told you about beween Hollenhund and myself. I realized through talking to you, and H pointed this out above, that this really isn’t the venue to discuss what drives guys like him and I, and I really can’t be mad at you for that; in the end, this is your thing and you have the right to do as you see fit. In many ways, I don’t belong here, and we all know it. And we all also know, that the Martys of the world in this day and age, are basically screwed, pardon the pun, because we know they got about as much chance of getting any as they will of hitting the Powerball.

    Now, you asked me about don’t dads step in and help their sons out. I don’t think you’re hearing me, and I don’t think Hollenhund or Brendan are anywhere close to the mark either. So let me make this as plain as possible:

    Men are an expendale resource. Sperm, is cheap. Seen from a purely Darwinian evolutionary perspective, there is, has and will be, a surplus of swinging you know whats. It is neither in Womens’ nor a subset of Mens’, interest to publicly advocate on behalf of the putative 80% of guys out there. This is why you will NOT hear ANY MSM discussion along the lines of what you recently posted of Tracy Flory Clark. Such discussions are always couched in what’s best for Women terms, even if said Women aren’t great catches themselves. This isn’t a feminism thing, though that certainly helped it along. Nor is this a father thing, though that too certainly didn’t make things better. We are talking about something at the fundamental, primal level, something that is true, regardless as to the era or clime human beings find themselves in: there will always be more Men who won’t get any nookie at all, than there are Women who want relationships. But that isn’t the real problem, since as I’ve said, it’s nothing new. What’s new is that Men are living longer, and now understand exactly why they’re unlikely to get anything. And yes, we’re talking about a significant percentage, Ms. Walsh. And growing. And we don’t have the balls to tell these guys the truth. Which in part, is why they’re so pissed off.

    I realized that it ain’t your job, duty or interest to do any of that, and I’m cool with it. You have a different mission, and for what it’s worth, I hope you achieve it. Me, I’m on some other ish. And I likes to keep it raw.

    Me and Hollenhund’s discussion about you will be posted at my place tomorrow morning, first thing. If so inclined, drop on by – I promise I won’t delete ya. ;)

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obs

      In many ways, I don’t belong here, and we all know it.

      I disagree. You’re smart, and interesting and interested. I appreciate it when you come by here. I look forward to getting my panties in a twist at your place tomorrow.

  • Chili

    @Mike C
    Maybe I should clarify. When I see a man who’s 40 going after a woman who’s 20, I’m inclined to wonder why a man old enough to be my father isn’t already married. If it’s because he’s a divorcee, that’s a major disadvantage for reasons already discussed. If it’s because he’s been a bachelor his whole life, that’s perhaps even worse. Obviously there are many circumstantial factors, but both of these options potentially point to serious character flaws.
    “I thought you’ve read enough to know what men generally find sexually attractive.  Men don’t prefer younger women because “he can’t get anyone in his own age group”.  Men prefer younger women because sexual attraction is primarily visual and the typical 22-25 year old is going to look much better visually then the typical 40-year old.  ”
    Sure. No one’s arguing the contrary. But if you’re a 40 year old guy looking to settle down, hopefully character traits matter a little bit more to you than looks (or at least equally). Which is why when 40 year old’s hit on me, I automatically assume they either a)only want me for sex or b) wonder what they think I could possibly have in common with them as someone 20 years their junior. Maybe he is immature, or maybe he likes the idea of ‘teaching me about life’. You just gotta wonder why he isn’t going for someone he would probably have more in common with, i.e., an older woman.
    Does that make more sense?
     

  • Mike C

    I also see double standards in effect. Women consider themselves justified in despising men’s desire for sexual variety and take it as self-evident that strict social controls should exist to rein it in. On the other hand, they think their own sexual choices are always justified and they’re totally OK with a system which <a href=”http://glpiggy.net/2010/09/28/men-resent-hypergamy-because-it-makes-them-sweat/#comment-5228” rel=”nofollow”>robbed men of all legal means</a> of mitigating female hypergamy.

    I have to say I think Hollenhund is spot on right on this point.
    Couple of things.  I think culturally there is a greater awareness and recognition of men’s polygamous desires.  “All men our dogs”.  In contrast, the level of awareness about the magnitude of the women’s hypergamous desires really only exists in the Game community.  Most men don’t understand it, and many women don’t understand it about themselves.  Just reading the comments here from women over the last year or so has been educational in that many women don’t really understand why they are attracted to some men and not others.
    And there is a societal double standard here.  Tiger Woods is the quintessential example.  He was demonized, vilified, and excoriated over and over.  In contrast, a women leaving her husband for a “better man” plays on Lifetime each and every week.  I think this rightfully pisses off a lot of guys who understand that male polygamous desire = female hypergamous desire, and you either demonize both equally or leave both to run without criticism.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I think this rightfully pisses off a lot of guys who understand that male polygamous desire = female hypergamous desire, and you either demonize both equally or leave both to run without criticism.

      Sounds fair. It’s clear that women have a much more difficult time accepting their own natures than men do, and I wonder why. There is indeed a resistance – that hamster in our brains had to come from somewhere. I don’t know if the problem arises with the idea of women trading up once they have a partner, which is perceived as immoral, or they can’t admit they find few men attractive. And then there’s the cultural piece – the rom coms, chick lit, etc. that has warped female expectations about what men want and how they behave.

  • Plain Jane

    @Goef, disagree that young girls want tattooes because they want to become “sluts”.  It’s a mainstream trend.  Little 6 year old girls are even fascinated by them.  It doesn’t mean anything anymore.  As someone else pointed out above, things happen rapidly in our hi-tech times.  That means trends come and go and also change meaning very fast. 
    I remember even when I was a kid we had temporary tattoo stickers that we played around with.
    Regarding my Grandma in a “retirement home” – they are part of the decline in American family life.  Grandparents can live with their adult children and be a major force in their grand-kids lives – or is that too 3rd world for ya?
    —-
    @Matt T, “Anyways, men don’t want relationships with mediocre women (though they will gladly bang them). For the same reason that women don’t want sex with betas (though they will gladly manipulate them for material/emotional gain and LJBF them later). It’s just biology. And just as women are hypergamous, always looking to trade up, so are men.”

    Men don’t want relationships with mediocre women?  Then how is it that you, or I or any of us got here???  I’m willing to bet that your mom, grandmom, aunts, cousins, sisters, any woman in your family who got married is not exceptionally beautiful 10 material.  Neither are mine.
    The overwhelming majority of all of us are “mediocre” though the “special snowflake syndrome” is rapant in American culture, when it comes down to it – none of us are “all that”.
    People can fantasize all they want (I do too!), but when it comes down to what we can realistically get, we all settle for less than Super Star 10s, and that’s how the human population has gotten to where its at.  And for that matter – how you and I were born.

  • GudEnuf

    Women embraced feminism under the rather childish delusion that they can reject patriarchal roles and obligations (ladylike behavior, for example) while men will just dutifully keep theirs.

     
    There are no serious feministswho favor benevolent sexism. There are a few “strong, independent women” who still want men to pick up the tab, but none take a major role in the feminist movement.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      There are a few “strong, independent women” who still want men to pick up the tab, but none take a major role in the feminist movement.

      Most young women today are strong and independent, and most of them want men to pick up the tab.
      .
      What young women take a major role in the feminist movement? Can you name them? I am aware of a small handful, because of feminist blogs, but much of their energy goes into sex-positivity. There are a few also interested in sexual violence.

  • Mike C

    @Chili,
    OK, got it, your clarification makes sense, and yes, I would agree that a 40-year old going for a 20-year is 99.9% just interested in sex.  The age gap would be too large to bridge for a long-term relationship.  That said, there is this interesting movie, and I can’t remember the name of it now, but it is interesting along this theme.  The guy jumps back in time to meet his future love as a super young girl, and they have this ongoing friendship as she grows up through her childhood, teen years, and then they meet when if I recall he is a somewhat older adult and she is a young adult.  He ends up getting shot and killed, but his daughter inherits his time jumping.  I know it is just a movie.  This discussion made me think of it.

  • Plain Jane

    “So, how to communicate that you only had one relationship, wasn’t your fault that it ended”

    I woudn’t communicate that.  Her b.s. rader will alert.  Why?  It takes 2 to tango and even if she initiated the break-up, there must have been something for you to learn from it – like about your own choices in women perhaps. 
    Take responsibility.

    Its sexy.

  • Mike C

    Looks like I spoke too soon on the line breaks.  I guess you still need the period.

  • terre

    A lot of bad blood in intersex discussions on mating (which are very rare in and of themselves) stems from the lopsided scales; men compete and women choose. It’s natural that women who aloofly talk about their laundry lists, reasons for rejection and so forth will come across as somewhat unlikeable. It makes it sound as though they take a lot about their fortune for granted, and it feels bad-spirited.

    It isn’t really their fault, though. It’s just a consequence of biology.

  • Plain Jane

    @ Matt T and Mike C regarding both age and looks; it was common not even a century ago for their to be significiant age differences in spouses and appearantly the generation gap was not an issue.  This is because back then children were socialized to take on adult responsibility in their teens.  People married, worked, bore and raised children – in their teens.  Now, even 20-somethings, and yes, even 30-somethings often have a spoiled, child-like attitude towards life.  Therefore the generation gap would be felt. 
    This ties in with looks.  If you checkout “THE SPEARHEAD” website, one of their latest entries is about Laura Ingells Wilder, complete with photos of her at various ages.  She was no great beauty.  Indeed she is what Matt T might refer to as a “mediocre” looking woman who, as he says above, “no man wants to be with”. 
    There is also a pic of her husband who was a solid DECADE older than her.  He was a handsome guy.  More physically attractive than her.
    Yet the looks or the age did NOT get in the way of their relationship, which lasted a long time through marriage, children, grandchildren and the husband’s disability.
    WHY?
    People were raised and socialized differently back then.
    Laura was courted by Almonzo at the age of 15 and married him at 18.  Very young.  Yet she was an “adult” in the real sense of the word – having labored very hard on her family’s farm since a young age and taken on responsibilities that adults in their 30s don’t take on today.
    Despite her not being a great beauty, all the men on “THE SPEARHEAD” are saying her husband was a “lucky man” to get a woman like her.
    But a woman like her and a man like him were COMMON back then.
    We are simply not socialized like that anymore.
    We don’t grow up and take responsibility at an early age like that, and someone with Almonzo’s looks in today’s world would rather play the field with better looking but lower quality women than Laura.
    In today’s age both the looks and the age difference between those 2 would spell their doom.

  • Stephenie Rowling

     
    @Höllenhund
     
    I don’t think that is how Hypergamy works, women are not attracted to the 20% top of the maledoom. Well they are but they are usually not aiming at it, is a bad strategy. But they are attracted to men of higher status than themselves.
    The problem with modern times is that a) women can earn money by themselves which raises their own status and shrinks their pool, b) Women have inflated self perception, we already talked about Straw Feminism but why do you think self help books are aimed at women and practically read only by them? Those books sell them the idea that no matter what they are special and deserve only good things in life, so nitpicking on decent guys because they are not on the top ten becomes almost an impulse, c) They believe that sex = a relationship or can lead to that. The stories of many women saying that they had sex on the first date with their current partner/husband are told and retold in a way that almost seems like the norm when the reality is a lot different so under this circumstances seems smart to hit on the top 20% because it looks like all women have a chance to nag one, when is nothing but an illusion. The thing is that old societal structures kept pushing women to just compete for a bit over themselves because there was a limited time to compete (before 30). But now the illusion is that you can always to whatever you want at whatever age with no consequences, is actually surprising things are not worst.

  • Geoff

    @Chili,
    While you’re dismissing a 40 year old guy for…well, being 40, some of your female compatriots are marrying them and living happily ever after.
    .
    My wife is 17 years younger than me, and whistles Zippety-Do-Dah out of her punani every morning as she gets out of bed because I am, in fact, that awesome.  Did I chase her because I want to “teach her about life” or because I couldn’t snag a 43 year old chick?  Nothing that complicated:  I’m happy to be married to her because she’s young and hot (which is awesome in different ways than my own awesomeness).  Plus we’re having a kid, and I don’t want my kid trying to fight his way out of a dusty, rusty exit door.  Young chicks have the good eggs.
    .
    So FYI, you might be missing out–then again, maybe you’d be happier with a man 17 years younger than you one day.  Diff’rent strokes.

  • Höllenhund

    I don’t think that is how Hypergamy works, women are not attracted to the 20% top of the maledoom. Well they are but they are usually not aiming at it, is a bad strategy.
    The funny thing is that the rest of your detailed comment and also the current state of the SMP contradict this.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Höllenhund
    Actually what I meant is that naturally a women used to have her feet on the grounds the rest was to explain how the things got to this point, if women wouldn’t have all the 3 factors around to change the market this wouldn’t happen and more beta men would be getting it, while there would be less unmarried women failing at securing a stable relationship.

  • terre

    The thing is that old societal structures kept pushing women to just compete for a bit over themselves because there was a limited time to compete (before 30).
    .
    This is partly the case, but the bigger problem is the essential marginalization of marriage, and ergo monogamy. Monogamy does two things to constrict women: it says that a) they must pick a mate and stick to their choice and b) they can only choose unattached partners. Women who are unconstrained by monogamy will gravitate towards the top because alpha genes are worth the trade-off; society then begins to unravel.

  • Chili

    @Geoff
    I’m not trying to dis your marriage. I’m sure your wife loves you; there are exceptions to every rule.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Terre
     
    You are right, but Monogamy also protected women on many other ways that made the trade off worth it. Securing a partner meant that you could have many kids (and you needed to have as many as possible given that many of them wouldn’t make it to adulthood) and Alphas might have good genes but no guarantees of protection or child-rearing, and will always have younger women with their genes competing for whatever resources the Alpha might get that might need to be shared with other women and their offspring.  So monogamy IMO protect both genders, most men have a chance to get a partner on monogamy and get their genes spread and more women have a chance to have a partner to raise her kids with and spread their genes.

  • Geoff

    @Chili,
    I didn’t take your statement as an insult.  I’m saying if you’re unwilling to consider a man who is older than you, you might miss out.  But you’re free to make up your minimum standards as you see fit.
    .
    Historically, as some of the other guys already mentioned, an older man and younger woman is THE NORM.  Only over the last 50 years or so has it become somehow distasteful.  Not sure why.
     
     

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “I woudn’t communicate that.  Her b.s. rader will alert.  Why?  It takes 2 to tango and even if she initiated the break-up, there must have been something for you to learn from it – like about your own choices in women perhaps.

    Take responsibility.
    Its sexy.”
    .
    WTF? Take responsibility for what? Women are filling in gaps in mens’ stories way too much these days. If he is going to say “my wife initiated a frivolous divorce” and his date is going to hear “ooh, he must have done something to make her leave,” I don’t see any reason he should try to fight her worldview – he should leave and find someone who isn’t such a shrew.
     

  • Chili

    @Badger
    “My wife initiated a frivolous divorce” sounds pretty bitter. If someone asks about relationship history (which is sort of tactless anyway) I think the best response is always something vague and short like “It just didn’t work out” or “we had differences.” It implies that there’s not much to talk about (no drama!) and that you’re not thinking about it anymore (over it!).

  • terre

    I’d agree that monogamy serves both genders in their biological interests (and it’s worth noting that both have to compromise; men do require moral training to forgo opportunities for straying when they crop up) but what’s happened in the last few decades has been a sort of absolutizing of responsibility; women will father children and make up the provider role via the state, some kind of job, alimony or child support, etc. One cannot overestimate how much power this gives a woman in her sexual dealings (which are already considerable, given she controls the contraceptive process).

  • NGII

    @Mike C
    .

    That said, there is this interesting movie, and I can’t remember the name of it now, but it is interesting along this theme.  The guy jumps back in time to meet his future love as a super young girl, and they have this ongoing friendship as she grows up through her childhood, teen years, and then they meet when if I recall he is a somewhat older adult and she is a young adult.  He ends up getting shot and killed, but his daughter inherits his time jumping.  I know it is just a movie.

    .
    The Time Traveler’s Wife

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    Chili,
    .
    ““My wife initiated a frivolous divorce” sounds pretty bitter. ”
    .
    The thinking propagated by you and Plain Jane is starting to sound like an inquisition or a Soviet show trial, where a man who may have been totally screwed by an evil woman (we really don’t know in any case unless you really know the man) has to prostrate himself by admitting some fault that isn’t there and confessing that “I guess I chose poorly/had it coming,” and is not supposed to show any trace of emotion about the whole thing.
    .
    It’s as if a lot of women don’t want to love and appreciate a man as he comes but want him to be some kind of custom-built robot who attends to her needs and only hers. That’s what I really think is behind this aversion to divorced men (which for the record I don’t think is particularly common) – this idea that he is “damaged goods” is because he previously loved another woman, and they don’t want a guy who’s already been shared (along with the fear she won’t measure up to the woman he split from).

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      That’s what I really think is behind this aversion to divorced men (which for the record I don’t think is particularly common) – this idea that he is “damaged goods” is because he previously loved another woman, and they don’t want a guy who’s already been shared (along with the fear she won’t measure up to the woman he split from).

      This insecurity that women feel about being compared is not unlike what men feel about promiscuity. I think you’re right about this – most women want to hear “I’ve never felt like this before.” That probably won’t happen with someone who’s been married already. I see the same thing happen when guys who have been in an LTR for ages suddenly get free – some women will be wary not only of his still being attached, but by the fact that he was attached for years in this SMP – he must have really loved her.
      .
      Research shows that women are more worried about emotional infidelity, and men fear sexual infidelity more. As a few men get tons of women, though, there is definitely a distaste that women feel about guys with a high number as relationship material. Again, fear of comparison is a big reason, but not the only one. Women worry about a guy’s capacity to fall in love at all if he’s pumped and dumped many women. And knowing that men like variety, they worry that a man who’s known it will never stay faithful. I would agree. A man with many sexual partners is not a good marriage bet. Even if he’s been handed all that poon on a platter, his inability to ever walk away from the cookie jar implies impulsivity, selfishness, even hedonism.

  • Plain Jane

    @Geoff, its true that not too long ago large age differences were not uncommon in couples.  I discussed a few of the socio-cultural reasons why that is no longer the case here;
    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/01/25/hookinguprealities/the-new-sex-math-probabilities-and-opportunities/#comment-27957
    —-
    @ HYPERGAMY in general.  The way for a man to beat a woman at the hypergamy game is to choose to couple with a woman lower than yourself.  This will fulfill her need to be with a man at a higher socio-economic (and perhaps even looks) level than herself.  She’ll be happy and content, hence you won’t have anything to worry about and thus will happy and content as well!
    Its a win/win
    —-
    Regarding THE TIME TRAVELLERS WIFE.  That movie was soooooooooooooooooooo boring.

  • Chili

    @Badger
    .
    Soviet show trial? Um, overreaction much? I simply said it’s bad decorum to talk about past relationships, especially in a negative way, in the beginning stages of a new relationship. It’s not communism, it’s common sense.

  • Passer_By

    @susan
    “For example, directing anger toward women for being hypergamous or liking 20% of the men is not legit – it’s biology.”
     
    The main source of the anger comes from:
     
    (i) The lies about this told to men and boys by women; and
    (ii) The fact that women constantly blame their lack of available monogamous mate choices on men, rather than on their own wiring.  This phenomenon is constantly described by women and the media as a failing of men as a class to be good enough, when, in reality, it’s intrinsic to female preference.
     
     

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Passer By

      The main source of the anger comes from:

      (i) The lies about this told to men and boys by women; and

      The lies that have been told have been equally perpetrated by men and women. Brendan’s comments re the Sexual Revolution are pertinent here. Furthermore, no one knew at the time they were lying, and that is still largely true today. People may be wrong, but I don’t perceive there is a plan to misinform – I would even say this is true of the sex-pos feminists I disagree with. They’re wrongheaded, but they’re not liars.

      ii) The fact that women constantly blame their lack of available monogamous mate choices on men, rather than on their own wiring. This phenomenon is constantly described by women and the media as a failing of men as a class to be good enough, when, in reality, it’s intrinsic to female preference.

      This I understand and agree with. Unfortunately, women usually lack this understanding. I know, because when I began this blog I honestly believed that it was all about men getting the best deal, at the expense of women. This is hardly limited to women, by the way – nearly every academic study that looks at the SMP ignores the hypergamy wiring issue. This was even true of the recent Mark Regnerus work on premarital sex, and he works at one of the strongest evo psych programs in the country.

  • Mike C

    The way for a man to beat a woman at the hypergamy game is to choose to couple with a woman lower than yourself.  This will fulfill her need to be with a man at a higher socio-economic (and perhaps even looks) level than herself.
    .
    I mostly agree with this.  In my opinion, I think a woman who thinks she has done very well is more likely to be very loyal and go the extra mile to make the guy happy.  A woman who has “settled” is probably more likely to be the exact opposite.  I’ll point out though that socio-economic status at least from the “lover” perspective (lover-provider spectrum) has nothing to do with socio-economic status.  Socio-economic status is tied to the provider perspective.
    .
    Regarding THE TIME TRAVELLERS WIFE.  That movie was soooooooooooooooooooo boring.


    I’m usually not a fan of love stories (more into action, thrillers, mysteries), but I enjoyed this.  Maybe it was the theme of true, timeless love conquering.  Which leads me to this thought.  In that movie, you really got the sense that she loved him deeply.  As much as I am a fan of the economic type analysis and analogies, at some point we are talking about human emotions and not just an exchange of sex for a relationship.  Sometimes, there are some comments that I read that hint at a very calculating nature.  I think one of guys’ biggest concerns, especially as guys age and get a little wiser is being a vehicle for someone else’s personal goals rather then a human being who is truly loved.  I think one of the issues very promiscuous women is they lose that capacity for deep, loyal love.  They’ve been used so many times, they get more used to viewing relationships as what they can be used for.

  • Observer

    Uhmmm sorry i don’t think the chick in the first pic is even close to being a “10”.She’s just okay.

    ALOT of women these days are really perfectionist and elitist ive noticed.Some act as though it is an honor that they even smiled or said hello to you.Mindboggling also is the fact that these same gals are complete phonies and were never attractive to begin with.

    A tip: just because some of you spend all day in the tanning salon,bleach your hair blond and shop at the gap doesn’t make you attractive.Alot of these same women were former brunettes who after doing the barbie make-over bit also copped the ego and attituse to go with it.Kinda like the guy who gets a tatt and all of a sudden he’s a tough guy.Why do “some” women adopt that look–its artificial as all h_ll and alot of guys are turned off by iy and it often accompanies the ego trip—-MAJOR TURN OFF.She also prolly looked better as the brunette.Also,these chicks ive noticed lip off to other women about being ton pale or whatever  as well–go figure.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    I mostly agree with this.  In my opinion, I think a woman who thinks she has done very well is more likely to be very loyal and go the extra mile to make the guy happy.  A woman who has “settled” is probably more likely to be the exact opposite.  I’ll point out though that socio-economic status at least from the “lover” perspective (lover-provider spectrum) has nothing to do with socio-economic status.  Socio-economic status is tied to the provider perspective.
     
    I totally agree one of the issues with settling is that if you settle too low you will always have a wondering eye and if someone better comes along specially during a rough time during the relationships chances are that things can get ugly. One of the reasons one of my advices was to up your names but keep aiming for someone that is your same level is because aiming too low is indeed settling while I advocate for realistic expectations on a partner no settling. The getting your number up is just a way to show that that there is no mystery to attractiveness (I do believe some people thing being pretty is the Holy Grail when is not and once you demystify it you can help but look for real enduring traits, no just empty looks).
     
    I’m usually not a fan of love stories (more into action, thrillers, mysteries), but I enjoyed this.  Maybe it was the theme of true, timeless love conquering.  Which leads me to this thought.  In that movie, you really got the sense that she loved him deeply.  As much as I am a fan of the economic type analysis and analogies, at some point we are talking about human emotions and not just an exchange of sex for a relationship.  Sometimes, there are some comments that I read that hint at a very calculating nature.
     
    There is a book called Falling in love for the Right Reasons that is pretty much like this blog, The Dr Neil Clark Jordan says that the most crucial moment to know if a marriage will last is to select a right partner and gives some guidelines as how to do so. The truth is that falling in love is easier than people usually believe, you spent time with a person doing fun and intimate things and chances are that unless you are very cold, made out of stone or/and deliberately avoid any emotional attachment (or you are a sociopath incapable of real human emotions) you are going to fall for him/her. All this advices are to make good choices, but once the choice is done you can let yourself fall freely into the wonders of love with a person that will be worth it, IMO. I can assure you that I was very calculative when I meet my now husband and I completely love him with all my hearth. So indeed I don’t think genuine women that want to do their best on dating game are going to be cold unemotional once attached, au contraire I will say a woman that knows how hard is to land a worth it partner will be forever thankful and loving to him. God know I hated dating with the fire of two thousand suns and I totally appreciate I don’t have to deal with this anymore thanks to my beloved husband, being the best choice for me and I forever will. God bless him!
     

  • filrabat

    @Susan

    9. in the long run the best strategy for the betterment of our species is both Slut shame and Alpha-Male shame

    For this to happen, we’ll have to essentially reverse most of the Sexual Revolution, but with a more equalitarian, less sexist twist.  Call it Neo-Traditional* views of gender relations (as in 50s style chastity for everyone + the right of women to function and contribute to any field they want and to have responsibility in the workplace commensurate with their talents).  Unfortunately the by-now traditional sexual practices are so deeply carved into our culture that it’ll take decades for us to completely undo.  Then again, all movements start from somewhere :)
     
    *Some place or another, that phrase is already taken, but I’ll use it anyway.

  • Plain Jane

    I don’t buy into the 20/80 theory because a majority of “regular guys” are coupled.  Either they are married, engaged, living together, dating or “kickin’ it” with regular women.

    I’m just not seeing only a minority of very hot, very alpha, very dominant men being the only men with women. 

    That’s not my dad, my granddad, my uncles, my brother, my cousins, my friends, my teachers, my neighbors, etc.
    They are all amongst the 80% of “regular ‘beta’ guys” and they ALL have women in their lives!
    The women in their lives are correspondingly “regular gals” also -but most of these people are content.
    Where does this 20/80  thing play out, because in my entire life I’ve not seen 80% of the men around me going without. 

  • Geoff

    @Plain Jane,
    No one’s saying that 80% of all men are going to “go without women.”  It’s just that most of that 80% ends up GETTING those women after they’re sexually used up by the alphas (i.e. the women will “settle”).
    .
    If you’re going to college, try to get an invite to a party at an athletic group (football, lacrosse and wrestling teams seem to have the most active alphas) or frat house and watch which men seem to have a magnet in their pants that pulls all female interest in their direction.  That’s what we’re talking about.

  • Geoff

    …also your grand-dad, uncles, and your dad are from a different generation.  Women shucking off their panties before marriage like female baboons in heat is a pretty recent development.  In your grand-dad’s day, every guy (even betas) had a fair chance to marry a guy in his looks range, without her being used goods.  Except for a very few women who understand rudimentary economics and don’t give up their value, those days are long gone.

  • Plain Jane

    OK so the 80/20 is exclusive to campus life?

  • Geoff

    No, it’s universal in U.S. society nowadays–that was just an easy place for you to see what we’re all talking about.  And whether you believe in the truth is irrelevant–the truth is what it is.

  • Matt T

    @PJ
     
    The thing is that a woman’s value declines as she gets older and her looks start to fade.  Whereas before, she could ride alpha cock until the sun rose, she now sees the alphas start going after the new 21 year olds. Gradually, her expectations will adjust, and she will be forced to settle for a beta.
     
    On a college campus, most females mating with betas are the ones implicitly rejected by the men at SAE and whatnot, and their expectations have been adjusted again. Maybe they will look for other markers of status, such as intelligence, money, or good looks. Maybe not.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      On a college campus, most females mating with betas are the ones implicitly rejected by the men at SAE and whatnot, and their expectations have been adjusted again.

      I disagree. There are many women who avoid the Greek scene and sports like the plague. Even in schools totally dominated by Greeks, it’s only 50%. Many colleges don’t even have frats nowadays. There will always be socially dominant men, but generally it’s sluts who will go for the total douchebags.

  • Lavazza

    Badger: The “damaged goods” idea is telling us something that few women will otherwise admit, namely that a man who commits will not get out of that situation undamaged. The marriage will work out fine or he will be hurt. The option of the marriage not working out, but the man getting out undamaged is not there (unless the man was not committed, but got married anyway).
     
    The “damaged goods” idea is saying that the women advocating it are convinced that once a man commits he has no safe escape but also that they are convinced that few men are stupid enough to make the mistake again and/or they can guarantee/convince the man that committing to them will not be a mistake.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      The option of the marriage not working out, but the man getting out undamaged is not there (unless the man was not committed, but got married anyway).

      What if he changes his mind? What about the 1/3 of divorces that men do initiate? If he falls out of love is he damaged or not? I’d rather take the jilted husband, myself.

  • Lavazza

    “The truth is that falling in love is easier than people usually believe, you spent time with a person doing fun and intimate things and chances are that unless you are very cold, made out of stone or/and deliberately avoid any emotional attachment (or you are a sociopath incapable of real human emotions) you are going to fall for him/her.”
     
    This is the idea of arranged marriages. First you marry, then you fall in love.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    This is the idea of arranged marriages. First you marry, then you fall in love.
     
    Yes I know my Muslim friends seem to be happy with this, but I don’t think Western society will ever take this model. The idea of having the “freedom” to select is waaay too much part of our identity to educate people into arranged marriages. But again who knows if we ended up fucking up society even more maybe newer generations will be so disgusted that they could embrace this and other ideas.

  • Brendan

    That’s what I really think is behind this aversion to divorced men (which for the record I don’t think is particularly common) – this idea that he is “damaged goods” is because he previously loved another woman, and they don’t want a guy who’s already been shared (along with the fear she won’t measure up to the woman he split from).

    I think (and in my experience) that the attitude toward divorced folks is very age-dependent, but also very person-specific.  That is, quite generally, women in their early to mid-20s are going to generally be much less interested in someone who is divorced — the perception is that they can do better.  Exceptions are made for exceptional guys — read, alphas.  As women get into the 30s, the attitude often relaxes, both because relative options begin to lessen, and the percentage of divorced guys who are in the remaining pool is higher.  And as women get into the late 30s and 40s, screening out divorced men becomes counterproductive, because it’s the guys who are in their late 30s and early 40s who have never been married who are getting screened out.

  • Florence

    @ Mike C

    “I think one of the issues very promiscuous women is they lose that capacity for deep, loyal love.  They’ve been used so many times, they get more used to viewing relationships as what they can be used for.”
    – I often have the same concern about men who have banged too many women. The fact that they didn’t get attached to neither of the women at some point or fell for any of them is a big red sign that the man in question is ether emotionless or jaded and the likelihood of me being # XX is probably guaranteed. So, yes I do ask guys for their number and if it seems like ultra-inflated of ridiculously high, I avoid them. I am willing to accept a guy who has had a few gfs and sex with them, a few drunken ONSs, but not the type of guy who specifically goes to bars every weekend with the intention to pick up. That’s just gross.
    “That’s what I really think is behind this aversion to divorced men (which for the record I don’t think is particularly common) – this idea that he is “damaged goods” is because he previously loved another woman, and they don’t want a guy who’s already been shared (along with the fear she won’t measure up to the woman he split from).”
    – I am in my mid-twenties and I don’t have this attitude. I believe in second chances. I believe that people, including promiscuous women are capable of loving another great person. I believe that a guy who was able to commit and love another woman is a great catch, as long as he doesn’t have children with her. Why should a good looking, honest guy get DQed because he loved someone else? You can’t control whom you fall in love it, it just happens even if you don’t want to. Plus, who “damaged the goods”? Probably another woman. Why should I measure up to her? I am different and unique and he probably won’t even try to compare the two of us. As long as he is clearly over her, I don’t see her as a thread to have to measure up to. I don’t know why some women have these attitudes, but I supposed that they are based on fear and insecurity.

  • Lavazza

    Perhaps OT, but what age do women think is the limit for having children with a guy. At what age do you think you have to be in a relation with a guy who wants to have children with you to be sure to have children? My guesstimate is that it starts with her age plus 10 at the age of 18, and then she takes of one year for every two years, so a 24 YO thinks it is 31, a 28 YO thinks it is 33 and 34 YO thinks it is 36. After that it seems to stay at 2 more years until menopause.

  • Florence

    @GEOFF

    “Well sure you can DQ the short guys–not that a guy’s height has anything to do with his ability to provide for his family, but sure, you can DQ any guy you want for any reason you want.
    I suppose that it is just a personal preference that I like taller/stronger guys. Men DQ overweight women, although these women would probably make great mothers and wives and have personalities way more amazing than some of the good looking women. I am open to dating a shorter guy, but he has to be amazing in every other way or to have confidence levels way above mine. I haven’t met one yet, but if I do, I might settle down with him.
    “But why is a guy suddenly an asshole for not wanting to marry a former or current slut? I’m genuinely worried that you’re going to end up alone. Obsidian is right, pay attention to what the men are saying on this blog or you’re going to own 5 cats and live in a studio.
    – First of all, a woman who has sex in a relationship is NOT a slut. A woman who allows herself to be picked up at bars, takes her panties off at the elevator, or agrees to be FWB, might be a slut. However,a woman who is not a virgin because she has liked/love/been strongly attracted to someone in a relationships and has decided to sleep with him IS not a slut. They didn’t end up married because the relationship didn’t work out for whatever reason. You really do have unrealistic expectations of women to remain virgins until marriage and wrongly put women who are not virgins into the slut category.
    .
    I am paying attention to all of the men here and I greatly appreciate their advice although I do have the right to agree or disagree. In addition, as someone who is getting information that would be used to make important decisions in their life, I have to be critical of the sources, some of which fall into the category of angry divorced men or former players.
    ONLINE DATING sites however, were death to me and I’m 5’5″ and women DQ’ed me right off the bat in their minimum quals–no quick-wittedness allowed to be displayed.
    Yes, I fully agree with that. Online websites do not do a favor to certain types of men or women. The slightly chubby girls don’t do well on those websites either.
    “I didn’t consider my height anything more than an interesting hurdle cuz I barely had to work hard to get most girls’ panties on the down escalator.”
    – TBH, with your conservative attitude, I highly doubt that you got too many chicks. You don’t seem very open minded and come off as a jerk. Maybe you got 1 such chick..

    “P.S. I married a former NCAA Div I track athlete (triple jump) who’s 5 inches taller than me and was raised as a churchy girl. “

    -Good for you. My brother is 5’7” and has been dating a girl taller than him for over 2 years now. Now my question is, why would a religious and presumably a virgin girl marry a former player?
    “I run game on her constantly, in order to keep her hamster’s mouth shut.”
    – Wow! If I were your wife, I wouldn’t like to hear that. If someone doesn’t necessary share your views and opinions, they automatically get thrown into the “hamster” category? I wouldn’t like my husband to think that of me or to run BS such as Game on me. If any man doesn’t respect my views/opinions, they are not obligated to be with me.
    “Young chicks have the good eggs.”
    – If you DQ a woman after a certain age because you think her eggs might not be good, I’d say that you just saved her from the misery of being with someone like you. Seriously, I’ve never heard anything more offensive than this.
    Personally, I’ve always been sort of skinny/petite. My former gfs reached the peak of their sexual attractiveness in high school and undergrad and now some of them look like they are 30+ old women. I am now starting to enter my peak sexual attractiveness and will likely hit the top of it around 30. Yes, I was invisible to the guys I liked in high school because they were going after the older and more developed looking chicks. Certainly, they notice me a lot now and even younger guys constantly hit on me.

  • karen

    @MikeC
    I also believe that promiscuous women are likely to not have the capacity to be loyal loving wives.  The promiscuous female I know has been, for several years now, on  the lookout for a wealthy husband.  She doesn’t ever talk about love, only a man’s ability to financially provide for her. And she has cheated on her last boyfriend but she will be seeing him this weekend in the hopes of getting back with him and his bank account. 
     On the other hand, the females I know who have a low number of sexual partners, constantly talk about love and meeting the right guy.  A guy’s bank account is not even a part of the conversation for these women.  They just want to meet the right guy, get married, and live happily ever after.
    I don’t think many promiscuous guys would have trouble being loyal husbands because as many of the male commenters have explained, it is just about sex for them, especially when young.

  • http://www.cygne-gris.blogspot.com Simon Grey

    @ Susan Walsh- Saying that humans are rational or irrational is http://cygne-gris.blogspot.com/2011/01/defining-irrationality.html inherently tautological.  When Ariely says that humans are irrational, he means that humans do not pursue strategies that are in harmony with their stated goals.  When an economist like Mises states that humans are rational, what he means is that humans generally use the most efficient methods to pursue their desires.  Human desire is determined by their actions.  Thus, neither side really disagrees with the other, in that they operate from different assumptions/definitions.
    In this case, men who reject the prettier woman are acting rationally, in that they perceive the costs (the probability of harsh rejection) to be higher than the perceived benefits (the probability of the girl saying yes).  No one wants to attempt a losing venture.  However, the men are acting irrationally, in that their actions are not in line with the stated goal of being with a pretty a lady.  Ultimately, then, the rationality of their behavior is largely dependent on how you define the term.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Simon Grey
      Thanks! I confess this is a subject I know little about. I’ve been meaning to read Ariely’s book, which should perhaps help.

  • AnonymousF

    @karen

    “A guy’s bank account is not even a part of the conversation for these women.  They just want to meet the right guy, get married, and live happily ever after.”

    I’ll probably get flamed for this, but in my opinion it’s foolish to think a guys bank account (or at least bank account potential) is *completely* irrelevant to whether he’s the right guy. It’s also highly relevant to the ultimate probability of a “happily ever after.”

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com/ Joe

    @Florence <blockquote>You can’t control whom you fall in love [w]it[h], it just happens even if you don’t want to.</blockquote>
    Actually, I think this is not quite right. I read a long time ago that the word you’re looking for is <a href=”http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cathexis”>’cathexis'</a>. That’s the “uncontrollable” longing you’re speaking of. Love, he contends, is an act of will. A big one. And I agree.
     
    Think of love as the intensional act of making yourself “all you can be” so that another person can also be “all they can be.” (If you’re interested, you’ll find more if you read <a href=”http://www.amazon.com/Road-Less-Travelled-Psychology-Traditional/dp/0684847248″>M. Scott Peck</a>.) I’m paraphrasing badly, but you can see that’s quite different and not at all what 20-somethings are thinking about, I’m sure.
     
    Perhaps they should!

  • http://www.privilegedwhitemale.com Cessen

    From the OP:

    The first woman is faaaaar better looking, in my opinion, but she doesn’t look like the sexual hellcat that is woman #2.

    Chalk it up to personal taste, but for me it’s the other way around: #2 is far better looking. She has a certain geeky/nerdy look about her. #1 looks way too much like the ‘normal’ ‘popular’ girls.

    Is it atypical (for a guy) that so much of my visual attraction to women is associative? I envisage having really boring awkward conversations with #1. I imagine having fun, goofy, nerdy, relatable conversations with #2.

    And while #2 certainly has sexiness going on, her take on it isn’t mainstream. The women that tend to put me off are the ones who dress really sexy/’slutty’, but do so in a highly conformist, mainstream way. The more ‘trendy’, the more ick-factor.

    I very well may not be typical in this regard, though. Some guys will point out so-called “10’s” (I hate rating women… ick), and all I can think is, “Huh? Where’s the personality?”

    And in the end, this is just visual attractiveness. If I get the chance to know someone, my sense of how attractive they are can easily shift.

  • http://chuckthisblog.wordpress.com/ Joe

    Susan! Sorry. Not used the WYSIWYG editor yet!

  • http://www.privilegedwhitemale.com Cessen

    Hmm.  I should clarify that both #1 and #2 are very attractive women, IMO.  Just #2 is moreso.
    Honestly, from a visual standpoint, most are attractive in some way.  But I tend to filter out the ‘trendy’ looking women, due to association.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Hi Ms. Walsh,
    Repliesw below:
    .
    SW: This I understand and agree with. Unfortunately, women usually lack this understanding. I know, because when I began this blog I honestly believed that it was all about men getting the best deal, at the expense of women. This is hardly limited to women, by the way – nearly every academic study that looks at the SMP ignores the hypergamy wiring issue. This was even true of the recent Mark Regnerus work on premarital sex, and he works at one of the strongest evo psych programs in the country.
    .
    O: I’ve already explained the reason why this is, but I’ll happily repeat it: eggs expensive, spearm cheap. Simply put, you will NOT see Regnerus or anyone else make the case that the Martys of the world aren’t getting any and that we have to level the playing field for them. That’s just not the way our species is wired.

    I’ve written about this more in-depth upthread, specifically in response to your questions to me. Please review it?

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obs

      you will NOT see Regnerus or anyone else make the case that the Martys of the world aren’t getting any and that we have to level the playing field for them

      I don’t see Regnerus as needing to have an agenda. Indeed, I believe his aim is to discover truth. In that case, identifying the issue, even though it has no solution, would be logical. If it can be identified.

  • Anonymous

    @ Karen
    “I don’t think many promiscuous guys would have trouble being loyal husbands because as many of the male commenters have explained, it is just about sex for them, especially when young.”
    – Yeah okay but, when you meet a guy who’s banged 100 chicks and none of them was an actual gf, what makes you think that you have a chance of being that special one to become his gf? There must be something seriously wrong with a guy who’s banged a large number of chicks without eventually falling for neither of them! Usually, these types of men have very low standards and sleep with a lot of very low quality women – ugly, low SE status, out of school, etc and I can understand why a man wouldn’t fall for these women, but if you as a man have such low standards, what makes you think that you can marry a woman with high standards? In addition, as a woman with high standards, what guarantee do you have that he will actually appreciate the fact that you have high standards? He is accustomed to women with low standards! Think about it…
     

  • Florence

    Oops, sorry again. The above post was mine.

  • Geoff

    @Karen,
    KAREN GETS IT!  “I don’t think many promiscuous guys would have trouble being loyal husbands because as many of the male commenters have explained, it is just about sex for them, especially when young.”
    .
    EXACTLY.  Men and women are different.  And even if a woman WANTS to have a lot of sex before marriage like the old slut from SATC (forget her name) and not have it considered any more disqualifying than a man with the same experience–reality isn’t like that.  Yes, it’s unfair, blah blah blah.  Men getting laid 75 times before marriage has NO BEARING on his ability to be faithful once he marries.  He was likely telling every chick that he wasn’t looking for a relationship.  A woman with those numbers?  Huge risk.

  • Geoff

    quoting Florence
    F-“ONLINE DATING sites however, were death to me and I’m 5’5″ and women DQ’ed me right off the bat in their minimum quals–no quick-wittedness allowed to be displayed.
    Yes, I fully agree with that. Online websites do not do a favor to certain types of men or women. The slightly chubby girls don’t do well on those websites either.”
    .
    G-Yeah, it’s a shame that short guys can’t eat fewer doughnuts and exercise in order to get taller.


    F-“I didn’t consider my height anything more than an interesting hurdle cuz I barely had to work hard to get most girls’ panties on the down escalator.”
    TBH, with your conservative attitude, I highly doubt that you got too many chicks. You don’t seem very open minded and come off as a jerk. Maybe you got 1 such chick..
    .
    G-I seem closed-minded and I come off as a jerk. Ergo, I never got laid. You, madam, are hilarious (or maybe you’ve never met an American woman in your life).


    F-“Young chicks have the good eggs.” If you DQ a woman after a certain age because you think her eggs might not be good, I’d say that you just saved her from the misery of being with someone like you. Seriously, I’ve never heard anything more offensive than this.
    .
    G-The truth is offensive?
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1351237/Women-6-times-likely-suffer-fertility-problems-35-25.html
    That article is dated today, actually.


    G-Finally, if you think you’re going to hit the peak of your attractiveness at age 30, then I say this in the spirit of helping you: no woman on the planet can stop the passage of time. You know what type of people say things like “30 is the new 20″? Chicks who are 30 and want to avoid reality. Don’t waste time thinking you have forever–find a nice man ASAP. You don’t have the kind of time you think you do. I’m telling you the truth while all your girlfriends are lying to you.

  • Florence

    @ Joe
    Thank you for the suggestion. I just looked up the term:
    “cathexis” = investment of mental or emotional energy in a person, object, or idea

    Well, I suppose this might be the functional definition of “love”.  However, it has been scientifically proven that attraction or love is in fact a chemical reaction that results in a large number of hormones being released. From a female perspective, this involves thinking about someone quite often and having your temperature raised (feeling hot) if they are around or if they touch you. You might consciously know that this person is not a good person, but if they are able to provoke this chemical reaction in you, then it’s hard to resist. Love is blind, they say. I have fallen for some guys, knowing consciously they weren’t great guys, but I couldn’t help it. They were hot and they knew how to get inside my head. Do I regret it? Maybe, but I consider myself a human being with emotions and feelings, not a robot who calculates probabilities and chances of someone’s odds of being a “good guy” and therefore choosing them.

  • Florence

    @ Geoff
    Do you think that only eggs, but not semen are affected by age? I can pull a number of scientific studies out to prove you wrong.

    As to the above article, I fully agree. I wish I could afford to have babies now, without losing my school/career opportunities.

  • Florence

    @ Geoff
    I’ve met quite a lot of American women. They are all different. Some are slutty, some are not, some think like me, others don’t. Bottom line, they are all different, just like are women in other countries. I have also met a lot of foreign men who consider American women as “easy” or as sluts, and I constantly yell at them that it is wrong to put ALL American women under the same, or in this case the “slut” denominator.

    “G-Yeah, it’s a shame that short guys can’t eat fewer doughnuts and exercise in order to get taller.”
    – Yes, that it true, but loosing weight isn’t exactly easy either. How many women do you know who went from being overweight to having amazing skinny bodies and managed to maintain that?

  • Florence

    @Karen
    “A guy’s bank account is not even a part of the conversation for these women.  They just want to meet the right guy, get married, and live happily ever after.”
    I agree with AnonymousF. I am not the type of girl who digs guys with money, but a guy who hasn’t managed to save a penny in his bank account by a certain age (because he spent it all on buying chicks drinks at bars or for any other reason) is a guy I’d likely to DQ. Ability to save money reflects financial responsibility and that is important for a lot of women..and men.

  • Mike C

    I’ll probably get flamed for this, but in my opinion it’s foolish to think  a guys bank account (or at least bank account potential) is *completely* irrelevant to whether he’s the right guy. It’s also highly relevant to the ultimate probability of a “happily ever after.”

    Not gonna flame, you are just being honest, and just as men are wired to desire traits representing fertility, women are wired to prefer resource providers.  Nothing wrong with that.
    .
    That said, here is where that gets problematic.  We live in a society of rampant consumerism/materialism.  God forbid you don’t upgrade your phone every 12 months.  And I think i would be correct to say women fall prey to this more  then men.  It is one thing to desire a stable provider, quite another to insist a man has to be capable of providing an opulent lifestyle in order to achieve “happiness”.  The latter is a person with seriously fucked up priorities.
    .
    The average Baby Boomer has basically nothing saved for retirement.  There are going to be a lot of people eating cat food living in shacks in their old age, and in most of these cases it was due to the wife overstretching the family budge to get the 3000 square foot house instead of 1800, to get a new car every 3-5 years instead of 8-10.
    .
    To summarize, I think it is perfectly reasonable for a women to prefer a stable income provider over a unemployed bum or grifter as the “right” man, but any guy with  modicum of sense should run like hell from any women who is looking for a high-end lifestyle of luxury in order for you to be the “right” man.  Really, in that case, she is just a high-end prostitute.

  • Mike C

    Ability to save money reflects financial responsibility and that is important for a lot of women..and men.

    ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!

  • Mike C

    However, it has been scientifically proven that attraction or love is in fact a chemical reaction that results in a large number of hormones being released.

    That is NOT love.  That is infatuation/lust.  That eventually fades, and has to be replaced with LOVE if a relationship is to last.  Love is spiritual, it comes from the soul, not a cocktail of chemicals.  Love is ALSO A DECISION.  Think about it.

  • Mike C

    “I don’t think many promiscuous guys would have trouble being loyal husbands because as many of the male commenters have explained, it is just about sex for them, especially when young.”

    I’ll disagree with that.
    I do think without any doubt at all, that men are better able than women to compartmentalize love and sex without damaging/losing their ability to form a STRONG EMOTIONAL BOND WITH ONE PERSON, but I do think that men with super high numbers lose something.  I’ve seen it in guys with really high numbers.  They begin to internalize a philosophy of “all women are whores”, and they’ll carry that with them to all potential relationships.
    I also think that men who have sampled a massive amount of variety are going to have a harder time living without variety.  I have no doubt whatsoever that men with much higher numbers cheat more then men with lower numbers just as the study posted with women also showed.

  • Mike C

    There must be something seriously wrong with a guy who’s banged a large number of chicks without eventually falling for neither of them!

    Guarantee you are woman, anonymous because you are projecting the sex-emotion connection of women onto men.  I guess it must seem bizarre to some women, I can absolutely assure you a guy can have sex and have absolutely no emotional connection.  I think some women have that ability as well (although I suspect they can’t truly love at all for any reason).  A guy doesn’t “fall for a particular woman” because he has sex with her.  He falls for her for other reasons.

  • Mike C

    @ Karen
     
    @MikeC
    I also believe that promiscuous women are likely to not have the capacity to be loyal loving wives.  The promiscuous female I know has been, for several years now, on  the lookout for a wealthy husband.  She doesn’t ever talk about love, only a man’s ability to financially provide for her. And she has cheated on her last boyfriend but she will be seeing him this weekend in the hopes of getting back with him and his bank account. 
    On the other hand, the females I know who have a low number of sexual partners, constantly talk about love and meeting the right guy. A guy’s bank account is not even a part of the conversation for these women.  They just want to meet the right guy, get married, and live happily ever after.

     
    Very, very, very interesting statement here Karen.  You are NOT talking theory here.  You are talking direct experience here.  Your anecdotal experience supports my belief that promiscuity and “gold-digging” and likely future disloyalty are all connected.  They really speak to the character issue of whether you are dealing with a narcissistic, selfish person who believes they are the center of the universe and that relationships are about “what can you do for me” versus also prioritizing the other person’s goals, wants, and needs as well.

  • Mike C

    Sounds fair. It’s clear that women have a much more difficult time accepting their own natures than men do, and I wonder why.

    Yeah, I don’t know either.  Possibly women still want to hold onto the old Victorian notion they are the more “virtuous” sex despite the fact that both sexes are probably equally as fucked up from the biological programming perspective.
     
    Here’s the problem.  At the macro level, I see little to no progress or improvement made until both women and mainstream culture really accept women’s inherent nature.  Something along the equivalent of the widely accepted “all men are dogs” meme.  Mainstream culture is still stuck with blaming men for everything.  “They won’t commit”.  “They won’t grow up” etc. etc. etc. without even taking a second to examine the behavior of women motivated by their biological drives that is leading to this.

  • Geoff

    @Mike C,
    I like most of your commentary and agree with most of your points. But you almost gave me whiplash this afternoon…
    .
    M-“I also think that men who have sampled a massive amount of variety are going to have a harder time living without variety. I have no doubt whatsoever that men with much higher numbers cheat more then men with lower numbers just as the study posted with women also showed.”
    .
    ***THEN you said in a diff post***
    .
    M-“[You quoting Karen: I don’t think many promiscuous guys would have trouble being loyal husbands because as many of the male commenters have explained, it is just about sex for them, especially when young.] “I’ll disagree with that. I do think without any doubt at all, that men are better able than women to compartmentalize love and sex without damaging/losing their ability to form a STRONG EMOTIONAL BOND WITH ONE PERSON, …”


    G-Well, you say men who have a lot of sex before marriage are unlikely to honor their vows. Then you say men are able to compartmentalize sex and love. Dude, I knew when I was banging chicks that I was…er, just banging chicks. When I sought love, I knew the difference. Women seem to have a HUGE problem divorcing the two in their mind.

    .

    Now, I’ll concede my return to the church could have some supporting effect on my control of my natural impulses to want sex with every hot chick I see even now that I’m married (and trust me, I do–men are pigs). But even if I were agnostic or an atheist, I think a man can be logical and capable of controlling his desire for polyamory simply out of recognition that a nuclear family is the ideal setting for his children to grow up in. It’s the former female sluts who can’t control their hypergamy (even if they have kids), which is why they’re not in high demand for marriage.
    .
    Finally, even if an alpha is more likely to cheat, and women could ensure a greater chance of a husband who showed fidelity by marrying a beta…wait a minute. Chicks don’t want betas. Guess that’s why Charlie Sheen doesn’t seem to have a problem getting chicks to marry him even though he pretty much admits he’ll stick it into anything.  Alphas CAN control their impulses–with females who have a slut history, it’s guaranteed they won’t.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Guess that’s why Charlie Sheen doesn’t seem to have a problem getting chicks to marry him even though he pretty much admits he’ll stick it into anything. Alphas CAN control their impulses–with females who have a slut history, it’s guaranteed they won’t.

      So Charlie Sheen doesn’t cheat? Why would a woman take her chances with a womanizer? When a man has a banquet of delectable dishes, why will he agree to eat a chicken breast every night for the rest of his life? (I think it was NBTT who made this comparison.)
      .
      Until someone can prove that womanizers, alphas, players, whatever, can make good husbands, I would advise every woman to avoid such men at all cost. There are just too many other good men out there. You are, in part, the choices you have made. That goes for both sexes. The fact that you, Geoff, said that you want to make amends for all the using of women you did – that’s your history, and why should a woman put her faith in you? The fact that one did, and that you are happy is great. But it’s hardly a prescription for wise selection.

  • AnonymousF

    @Mike C

    “To summarize, I think it is perfectly reasonable for a women to prefer a stable income provider over a unemployed bum or grifter as the “right” man, but any guy with  modicum of sense should run like hell from any women who is looking for a high-end lifestyle of luxury in order for you to be the “right” man. ”

    “High-end lifestyle of luxury” is relative. A good rule of thumb for lifestyle minimum is whatever a person grew up with.  A woman from a $650K/yr family earnestly convincing herself that she will be happy raising kids on $90K/yr (a respectable stable income in a general sense) if she’s married to a nice enough guy is very risky in my opinion. She shouldn’t be pressured to delude herself and him just to make some abstract moral point about materialism. 

    But, just because a woman wants a certain lifestyle, doesn’t mean all of it has to come from the husband. She should estimate what portion she is able/willing to provide and the difference left over should guide her choice of husband.  I made strategic choices in college and grad school that brought my earning capacity to where my income alone would support my minimum preferred lifestyle (upper middle class) for a family of 4-5.   I did so in part because I wanted to have maximum flexibility in choosing a husband.

    Whatever way a woman comes out, the general topic of money has to be very carefully considered. Unfortunately the American attitude is that frank financial discussions are somehow crass and offensive, and I think this gets a lot of people in trouble. 

  • AnonymousF

    @Susan – re: frats

    I don’t think frats, as a whole, should be avoided like the plague. At my college, most frats were made up of a majority of average “beta” guys. A few were uber-popular or dominated by 1-2 sports teams, but most were just normal guys who definitely weren’t swimming in tons of sex offers. I’m guessing that any school where Greeks make up a large portion of the student body will have a lot of frat boys who meet the nice-beta stereotype. Girls should be able to differentiate among frats pretty easily by their reputations.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @AnonF

      I don’t think frats, as a whole, should be avoided like the plague.

      I agree with you. I tend to go hard on frats – probably because a lot of bad behavior happens there and academics (like Regnerus in the previous post) specify frats when they talk about hookup culture. My son was in a frat, and it was a very nice group of guys, too. By no means were they all alpha types. A few were, and the others were just happy to be included. As Jane mentioned, Athlone is in a football frat at his college, and he is a terrific guy.
      .
      I know a few college women who date frat guys and are extremely happy in their relationships. However, I would say to a woman that looking for a BF in a frat house is a risky strategy. If it happens, great. Also, I have personally known really good guys who joined frats and started acting like complete assholes within a year. Hopefully, the change is not permanent, but often the beta guys who join frats emulate the alpha players.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    My point stands even more in lioght of your comment, because Regnerus most definitely DID take a position of advocacy on the part of Women with his interview with Tracy Clark Flory, and again proves my point. I defy you to find such a study or any such writing that focuses on the 80% of Men who get virtually NOTHING out there in the SMP.

    I’ll wait…

    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obs
      I think we’re saying the same thing. Regnerus takes the same position I once took, which is that all the guys are getting a sweet deal, and women are stupid to be giving it to them. I’m assuming that this is what he believes – or hasn’t found evidence for another theory. Even if you question the 80/20 rule, it seems to me that it’s pretty clear that women are making a beeline for the most dominant men. I don’t understand why this isn’t being studied, especially by the evo psych folks. David Buss, Matt Ridley et all write about female hypergamy – why is this going unexplored?
      .
      I gather you assume that this is a coverup of sorts, because the study itself, not to mention the findings, would be anathema to influential feminists. Or perhaps studies like this just can’t get funding? I don’t know. However, I can’t believe that anyone would write off 80% of men. The Marty’s of the world? Yes, they will have no advocates. But a system that deprives 80% of the men of sex is doomed. (As a caveat, I will reiterate that I don’t personally believe that 80% of the men get nothing.)

  • Florence

    The above post was from me and I will re-post it. I wish I could stay signed in and not having to sign in each time I visit ur page :(
    @SW
    “I think you’re right about this – most women want to hear “I’ve never felt like this before.” That probably won’t happen with someone who’s been married already.
    – Perhaps men can say best, but women are very unique and different from each other. What if he discovers personality traits he’s never known before? Certainly, he will feel very different with the new woman and fall in love with her for different reasons. Thus, technically by saying “I’ve never felt like this before” he will not be lying.

    Personally, if I like the guy, I won’t DQ him without making the effort to find out the circumstances of his divorce.

  • Florence

    @ Mike C
    “I can absolutely assure you a guy can have sex and have absolutely no emotional connection. ”
    – The anonymous post was mine.
    I agree with you, but out of 100+ women, not even one managed to get inside his head? Common.. I suppose if they were all ONSs or very ugly, but I know people who have slept on the fist date and ended up dating for years. A guy who has slept with so many women and not fallen eventually for either of them is either emotionally messed up or simply can’t see anything special about another human being. Either way, there is something wrong with him and he is not a keeper.

  • Plain Jane

    “Guess that’s why Charlie Sheen doesn’t seem to have a problem getting chicks to marry him even though he pretty much admits he’ll stick it into anything.”

    Hmmmm…….. why did all of Charlie Sheen’s wives divorce him again, I forgot?

  • Geoff

    @Susan,
    “Until someone can prove that womanizers, alphas, players, whatever, can make good husbands, I would advise every woman to avoid such men at all cost. ”
    G-But they won’t listen to you.   I suspect because:
    The potential for a woman to marry an alpha male who might cheat is a small price to pay for many women if it gets them an alpha (one downside, lots of upside).  And some former alpha males abide the marriage contract.
    The potential for a man to marry a former slut who might cheat is a HUGE price to pay that many men are unwilling to accept, since she has lower value than a chaste woman (gargantuan downside if she gets preggers with another man, little if any upside to preferring a slut to chaste woman).
     

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      The potential for a woman to marry an alpha male who might cheat is a small price to pay for many women if it gets them an alpha (one downside, lots of upside).

      What’s the upside again?

  • Geoff

    Sorry I was unclear–I didn’t organize that post very well.
    .
    I was saying that alphas CAN control their impulses…but even if they don’t, women will still line up.
    .
    And that’s why women are still willing to marry Charlie Sheen.  The fact he gets divorced a lot is irrelevant–I’m focused on the fact NEW women overlook his cheating past and agree to marry him instead of some beta insurance salesman down the block who would NEVER cheat on the woman in question.

  • Plain Jane

    There can be some very good guys in Frats, Athlone McGinnis who comments here is a nice guy  with family values who wants a relationship with a nice girl, and he’s in a Frat.  However he is from another country and culture – like I said before, college girls can find quality young men amongst the foreign exchange and ex-pat student group.  I highly recommend it.
    As far as divorced men, it depends.  Sometimes its proof that a man has the ability to commit and give his all to a woman, provided that the divorce was not his fault. 
    If its a “clean divorce” with no baggage than there’s no reason to write him entirely off.  Of course if he has kids that’s something more to consider.  Some single women who have never had kids before don’t mind, but most of us do.

  • Plain Jane

    OH, and about older parents.  I know several couples who didn’t have their first child until early 40s.  They are already middle aged and their bodies are gradually slowing down, they need more sleep, quiet time, etc (im talking about the parents here, not the kids LOL).
    But because they had kids so late they are now having to mimic the energy of 20-somethings in order to run around the kids all day and they are completely exhausted. 
    They will be in their late 50s when the kids are teenagers! 
    I can tell you one thing – kids are embarassed of “old parents”.
    BOTH men and women need to take into account aging and how that is going to effect their ability to run after babies, toddlers, kids and teens during a time in their life when the body and mind is NATURALLY slowing down. 
    You really begin to “feel your age” when you hit your 40s.

  • Lupo

    @Susan: “Does that mean that Ben Affleck is not an alpha male?”
    Anyone who gets engaged to JLo after knowing her for two months and then gets dumped for looking at strippers is not an alpha male: he’s a wuss. Jennifer Garner (yes, I had to google, as I did for Affleck) may be a lovely human being for all I know, but she’s not what I’d call an http://gossip.rateometer.com/wp-content/plugins/auto-blogster/images/jennifer-garner2.jpg attractive one. I mean, look at the photo. She’s scary. She looks like John Hurt in drag.
    Hollenhund’s seeming idea that women are aware of their hypergamous natures and do it on purpose, deliberately is a classic case of male solipsism. You make it sound as if they’re rubbing their hands together at the prospect of sleeping with a hockey team, then foisting the sprogs on some unsuspecting programmer nerd. With few exceptions, they don’t think about stuff like we do.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Lupo

      I mean, look at the photo. She’s scary. She looks like John Hurt in drag.

      Haha, ouch! She is very masculine. Roissy would say she has a high T alpha dad, for sure. I didn’t realize you aren’t in the U.S. She and Ben Affleck are big movie stars – especially him.

  • Florence

    @ Geoff
    “And that’s why women are still willing to marry Charlie Sheen.  The fact he gets divorced a lot is irrelevant–I’m focused on the fact NEW women overlook his cheating past and agree to marry him instead of some beta insurance salesman down the block who would NEVER cheat on the woman in question.”
    .
    It’s pretty common for celebrities to get married and divorced several times. They can afford to do so. I don’t see Charlie Sheen as some special exception. If you notice though,he first started with actresses and models, then downgraded to women who were not celebrities (his last wife was a real estate investor). I bet that next would either be some start-up model from a poor country or an otherwise infamous woman. I doubt that he’d be able to get a high-end actress.

  • Florence

    @PJ
    “I can tell you one thing – kids are embarassed of “old parents”.”
    – I agree with you there. I know someone who has old parents and this person avoids going home, unless it is holiday time. This person can’t stand spending more than a couple of days at home because he feels like “he is dissolving”.
    – I on the other hand am blessed with young parents (they had me when they were 22) and I can still talk with my dad about music and movies from his time and even go to rock concerts with  him! I find that absolutely amazing!

  • OffTheCuff

    Where does this 20/80 thing play out, because in my entire life I’ve not seen 80% of the men around me going without.
    PJ: The 80%/20% is for people who are looking and thus in the SMP, not people who have paired off and exited.
    Looking at where they are now won’t give you an accurate read, since you have no idea of their history. Instead, ask these men you know what it was like before they were married. Most of them are going to say “Horrible!” and describe long stretches of time with no female companionship at all — that’s your 80%. A few of them (quite probably 20%) will say “Wow, it was great! I met so many interesting ladies in my day, and had such a great time!”.

  • terre

    I’ll probably get flamed for this, but in my opinion it’s foolish to think a guys bank account (or at least bank account potential) is *completely* irrelevant to whether he’s the right guy. It’s also highly relevant to the ultimate probability of a “happily ever after.”

    It really means nothing. The wedding vows say “for richer and for poorer” for a reason.

  • terre

    That is NOT love.  That is infatuation/lust.  That eventually fades, and has to be replaced with LOVE if a relationship is to last.  Love is spiritual, it comes from the soul, not a cocktail of chemicals.  Love is ALSO A DECISION.  Think about it.
    .
    When Langley was writing her book, she found that while men called the chemical rush “infatuation”, women almost always called it “love”. So when they lose the chemical high, they think they’re out of love, and hence cometh all the troubles of womanhood. I’ve always thought that those kind of game blogs where the premise is like, “I’m going to run game on my wife to keep her attracted to me”, or “married game” or whatever were both on the one hand a smart choice but on the other a futile one, in a way. Is it possible for a woman’s conception of love to mature to the point where her husband can trust her not to stray elsewhere for that chemical rush? I would hope so. But the universe is a cruel mistress.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @terre
      The chemical rush wears off relatively quickly. It certainly doesn’t last decades. Women stay with husbands after it wears off because of the other parts of love – admiration, respect, caring, giving, loyalty, etc. And sex can still be great without feeling like you are so head over heels you can’t sleep!

  • Plain Jane

    @ Terre, ” The wedding vows say “for richer and for poorer” for a reason.”

    Don’t most couples write their own vows these days?  I think even my parents wrote their own vows and that was way back in the day, when the trend started.
    *

    @ Off The Cuff, “The 80%/20% is for people who are looking and thus in the SMP, not people who have paired off and exited.”

    That would be me!  And I still don’t see it.  I hang out with “regular people” no one is particularly special or “alpha” and they all manage to get someone of a more or less equal status, including number of past relationships or lays.
    *
    @ Florence, ”I know someone who has old parents and this person avoids going home, unless it is holiday time. This person can’t stand spending more than a couple of days at home because he feels like “he is dissolving”.
    – I on the other hand am blessed with young parents (they had me when they were 22) and I can still talk with my dad about music and movies from his time and even go to rock concerts with  him! I find that absolutely amazing!”

    Yep.  I know a few people where the generation gaps between them and their parents are the same as me and my grandparents and they have a REALLY hard time relating and bonding with them.  There is just too much difference in the way of thinking.
    Moreover when they were teenagers they were embarrassed to be seen with their parents in public, everyone thought they were they grandparents.
    This is the future though because many couples are not having their first kids til they are 40!  People are marrying later, having kids later, so we are going to see more and more of this. 

  • Geoff

    @Terre,
    I don’t think you can keep a woman AS infatuated with her husband as she was at the start of the relationship.  HOWEVER, you CAN keep her off-balance, giggly, then sad, then happy, then worried you might leave, then laughing, then off-balance again, etc.  Which I think is close enough to infatuation that they stay close to home.  It’s part of a husband’s job to keep the woman interested even after she’s said “I do.”
    .
    And the woman’s job not to get fat.
    .
    [flame on]

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      you CAN keep her off-balance, giggly, then sad, then happy, then worried you might leave, then laughing, then off-balance again, etc.

      Wow, that is extremely manipulative. Athol Kay’s blog describes a very different way of keeping a woman sexually invested. If my husband deliberately made me wonder if he might leave me, or worked to keep me guessing and off-balance, well – it’s moot. I would never have married him. I can’t imagine worse torture for a woman. Terrible.

  • OffTheCuff

    I’m not very attractive but I’ve mentioned before that older men, who I am not interested in, have often approached me.  It is extremely annoying to think that you are going to go to a coffee shop and work on homework, or go to a book store and spend a lazy Sunday afternoon alone with an herbal tea and good book on those comfy chairs, or even just needing to run into a drug store to pick up tampons real quick, and have these simply, everyday situations where you really just want to be left alone, perhaps you may also be suffering from depression or sadness over a lost loved one, and all of a sudden some dude things its the right time to invade your personal space, unsolicited, mind you.
    Here’s the money quote! I knew it would only took a few days for you contradict the idea nobody asks you out, and men don’t approach you at all. You have just admitted to rejecting men. Good, this is progress! But when they do, you blame them — you get huffy about them not having ESP and not knowing that you Want To Be Left Alone, when his only error really is that he’s not attractive enough. You’d make an exception if he was hotter. Everyone does.
    I’m not just busting on women here. If a man complains about having no dates, I would ask him how many women has he approached. If the answer is “none”, then I have zero sympathy for him. Likewise, if you shoot down everyone that approaches you, then… same thing. The problem is likely you.
    Here’s what I think. If men “at your level” don’t seem to be asking you out, it’s probably because of two things. 1) You inflate your own level, reject the men at your level, and then rationalize the lack of interest as “well, men only like 9’s and 10’s” — in other words, you are projecting hypergamy onto men. We’re not like that. Or, 2) You don’t put yourself in enough social situations where men at your level are likely to be.

  • Florence
  • Florence

    @ Mike C
    “That is NOT love.  That is infatuation/lust.  That eventually fades, and has to be replaced with LOVE if a relationship is to last.  Love is spiritual, it comes from the soul, not a cocktail of chemicals.  Love is ALSO A DECISION.  Think about it.”
    – I agree that the “cocktail of chemicals” is the cause of lust/infatuation, which does fade away with time, but I do think that it is part of LOVE, not a completely separate thing. If I don’t feel any chemistry/attraction/lust about a guy, no matter how great he is, he’d be put into the “best friends” category. I think that most women would agree that a guy must be able to make them feel sexy, give them the hots and shivers when he hugs and kisses, and makes them think about him 24/7 to the point where they can’t wait but to jump him! We are aware that this feeling fades away with time and if we’re marrying you, we won’t leave you simply because that initial feeling is gone. Good sex on regular basis, lots of cuddling and being romantic/dorky once and a while will probably suffice to keep oxytocin and serotonin released regularly in the female body after that initial feeling of lust is gone.

  • terre

    The chemical rush wears off relatively quickly. It certainly doesn’t last decades. Women stay with husbands after it wears off because of the other parts of love – admiration, respect, caring, giving, loyalty, etc. And sex can still be great without feeling like you are so head over heels you can’t sleep!
    .
    My point is that men are generally at risk if his partner’s conception of love doesn’t mature beyond the rush. Almost all cases of female adultery are due to her losing sexual attraction for her husband (and hence why telling him to pay her more attention is the worst advice possible; as Langley says, this often only further repulses women).

  • terre

    Wow, that is extremely manipulative. Athol Kay’s blog describes a very different way of keeping a woman sexually invested. If my husband deliberately made me wonder if he might leave me, or worked to keep me guessing and off-balance, well – it’s moot. I would never have married him. I can’t imagine worse torture for a woman. Terrible.
    .
    Again, Susan, don’t take this the wrong way, but what a woman says and what she does are extremely dichotomous. Women profess a distaste for mysteriousness, they’ll complain to the ends of the Earth about a man’s lack of clear commitment, but they’ll ultimately love him to a far greater degree than they would to any man who gave his word. Roissy has written a lot about this paradox of finding security in insecurity.

  • AnonymousF

    @terre

    Those vows* are taken when you get married. They reflect what you are promising to do *after* the marriage. But in choosing someone to marry, you want to give yourself the best possible odds of happiness, even while realizing that there’s a chance your life may end up looking radically different than you planned. For example “in sickness and in health” means that if your spouse becomes clinically depressed or physically disabled, you promise to stick by them. It doesn’t mean that, as a single person searching for a spouse, you are forbidden to have a preference against potential spouses who are already suffering from clinical depression or are currently physically disabled. 

    Note that my comment referred to the probability of a “happily ever after,” not merely a probability of staying married. I have pretty conservative beliefs on staying married once the deal is done, but I also think it’s best to minimize the amount of misery that requires of all involved. The best way to do that is to be pragmatic during the matching process. That means considering shallow things like looks and money.

    *By the way, those vows are hardly universally used, even by Christians.

  • Mike C

    @ terre
     
    When Langley was writing her book, she found that while men called the chemical rush “infatuation”, women almost always called it “love”. So when they lose the chemical high, they think they’re out of love, and hence cometh all the troubles of womanhood. I’ve always thought that those kind of game blogs where the premise is like, “I’m going to run game on my wife to keep her attracted to me”, or “married game” or whatever were both on the one hand a smart choice but on the other a futile one, in a way. Is it possible for a woman’s conception of love to mature to the point where her husband can trust her not to stray elsewhere for that chemical rush? I would hope so. But the universe is a cruel mistress.


    This is an epic comment.  IIRC, you said you were 21-22, you have a ton of insight/wisdom for 21-year old to recognize what you say above.  That is exactly it.  Many women mistake that “chemical rush” for love, and when they lose it for their current partner, those who do not take commitment seriously, look to get it elsewhere.  Most cheating occurs when women find or come across a man who can recreate that chemical rush and now they think they are “in love” again.  Obviously, natural alphas or men with Game are going to be the most skilled at inducing this chemical feeling.  This is yet another reason high number women are a bad bet for sexual/relationship loyalty.  They’ve demonstrated a predilection for wanting to recreate that chemical rush over and over and over.
     
    That said, I disagree with your idea that running Game on your long-term partner or spouse is futile.  You’ve got to do something to try and keep the attraction going.  The alternative is a much higher probability of a woman who is eventually going to leave you or cheat or mentally check-out of the relationship.  I think that movie Blue Valentine basically tells that story.  You’ve got to keep yourself attractive

  • Florence

    “Wow, that is extremely manipulative. Athol Kay’s blog describes a very different way of keeping a woman sexually invested. If my husband deliberately made me wonder if he might leave me, or worked to keep me guessing and off-balance, well – it’s moot. I would never have married him. I can’t imagine worse torture for a woman. Terrible.”
    – ABSOLUTELY AGREE!!! Men who believe that they can keep a woman in love by intentionally keeping her off-balance are very foolish. The “Game theory” in my opinion is complete BS. It has never been scientifically approved and those who are reading/believing in it, should be a bit skeptical …

  • Geoff

    Men, try being Alan Alda for six months.  Then try being Charlie Sheen (without the cocaine addiction) for six months.  See which one draws more female attention.
    .
    Call me an asshole if you must–I’m merely continuing to be the man that attracted my wife in the first place (and her many predecessors).  If women didn’t like LOVE my jack-assery, I would have been a virgin my whole life.

  • Plain Jane

    @ Off The Cuff, wrong.  I said I don’t get approached by men in my social group, my own age range, who are at my “average” level because they are pining for women way above their’s.  When I originally stated this I said the men who SOMETIMES do approach me are often almost old enough to be my father.  And yes, some of them are goodlooking “for their age” but I’m not in the market for a Daddy, even a rich one.
    I also said in the beginning that I eventually found a solution to my situation through inter-racial and inter-cultural dating in which I was able to land men who are in fact a few points ABOVE me on the looks as well as socio-economic scale. 
    Works for me!

  • Mike C

    My son was in a frat, and it was a very nice group of guys, too. By no means were they all alpha types. A few were, and the others were just happy to be included. As Jane mentioned, Athlone is in a football frat at his college, and he is a terrific guy.
     
    I graduated college 15 years ago so maybe things have changed, but when I was in school each frat had a very distinctive personality.  This makes sense because guys are only going to admit guys that “fit the profile”.  You can’t generalize across all frats.  When I was in school, there were 2 frats that were basically nothing but pure alphas, one was the frat all the football players belonged to.  Then there were two frats that were nothing but losers, dorks, and nerds.  Being one myself in college I started to pledge there.  No hot chicks showed up there ever.
     
    Now, one of the football players was a guy I knew from my neighborhood as a child.  For whatever reason, he actually liked me and invited me to a party there once when I first got there as a freshman.  Not sure I had ever seen so many hot girls in one place before in my life.
     
    So anyways, I think some frats equal alphas and some don’t.
     

  • Plain Jane

    @ Mike C, “Now, one of the football players was a guy I knew from my neighborhood as a child.  For whatever reason, he actually liked me and invited me to a party there once when I first got there as a freshman.  Not sure I had ever seen so many hot girls in one place before in my life”
    ——
    Mike, by admission you were a “dork/nerd” type.  Yet you were attracted to the type of non-nerdy, non-dorky girls who hung out with the Alpha Athelete Frat Boy types. 
    A few questions:
    1.  Why were you not attracted to the young women on campus who were like you – dorky and nerdy?
    2. Do you think its realistic for nerdy, dorky, men to expect non-nerdy, non-dorky, “hot” type popular sorority member women to be attracted to them?  Even going so far as to expect these “hot girls” to “save themselves” for an eventual LTR or marriage with them?
    3. Do you think the bitterness of nerds and dorks at the fact that these “hot” Frat chasing girls are not choosing them is justified when there are plenty of OTHER young women on the campus who are more psychologically compatible with these guys available?

  • Florence

    @ Mike C
    “Many women mistake that “chemical rush” for love, and when they lose it for their current partner, those who do not take commitment seriously, look to get it elsewhere.”
    – I’d say they cheat because their partner was no longer affectionate, has let himself go, rarely has sex with them,or doesn’t even acknowledge their existence. Of course, there is no excuse for cheating. They can choose to divorce though.
    While it is possible that a woman can get addicted to the chemical rush, in most cases she gets strongly emotionally attached to the guy she is with and the idea of having sex with any other man would very much repulse her. That is why when a relationship ends, men engage in a few ONSs, while women are very much repulsed of the idea of dating/sleeping with another man for quite some time. Even remarried women apparently engage in sexual activities much less.

  • terre

    Mike, by admission you were a “dork/nerd” type.  Yet you were attracted to the type of non-nerdy, non-dorky girls who hung out with the Alpha Athelete Frat Boy types. A few questions:1.  Why were you not attracted to the young women on campus who were like you – dorky and nerdy?
    .
    There’s no equivalent of “dorky and nerdy” men when it comes to girls (autism is a characteristically male spectrum disorder). Again, women are wired to feel attraction for the highest ranking slice of whatever social group. If a group of nerds fraternizes with a bunch of football players, she’ll tend towards the latter. If a group of nerds fraternizes with nerds, she’ll fraternize with the ‘alpha’ nerd (which even still is unlikely, since the group constriction is the entire high school and not just a social circle). It’s almost comical how predictably this plays out, even in IRC rooms or XBox Live guilds.

  • terre

    - I’d say they cheat because their partner was no longer affectionate, has let himself go, rarely has sex with them,or doesn’t even acknowledge their existence. Of course, there is no excuse for cheating. They can choose to divorce though.While it is possible that a woman can get addicted to the chemical rush, in most cases she gets addicted (emotionally attached) to the guy she is with and sex with any other man would very much repulse her. That is why when a relationship ends, men engage in a few ONSs, while women are very much repulsed of the idea of dating/sleeping with another man for quite some time. Even remarried women apparently engage in sexual activities much less.
    .
    The first half is completely wrong (women prone to infidelity are actively turned off by displays of affection from their husbands) but the latter is completely true; this is why sex surveys often confuse a woman’s propensity to love only one man with some kind of inherent inclination towards monogamy. A more apt description would be that a woman loves only one man at a time, but that man is liable to change at any point. The man she actually loves is whoever she’s engaging in sexual relations with.

  • Mike C

    Mike, by admission you were a “dork/nerd” type.  Yet you were attracted to the type of non-nerdy, non-dorky girls who hung out with the Alpha Athelete Frat Boy types.
    .
    I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here.  That dorky/nerdy guys should be more attracted to plain girls or dorky/nerdy girls instead of super hot girls.  Hot girls are hot girls.  The dorkiest, nerdiest, dweebiest guy on the planet is still going to be more attracted to a super hot girl then a plain girl.  Now he’ll never get her, but that doesn’t change the attraction.
    .
    1.  Why were you not attracted to the young women on campus who were like you – dorky and nerdy?

    Thinking back to college, I can actually recall having crushes on a few girls that were average to slightly above-average but I never approached them.  To your question, an unattractive girl is an unattractive girl.  A guy can’t force attraction to an ugly girl anymore then a girl can force attraction to a whimpering, supplicating omega.

    2. Do you think its realistic for nerdy, dorky, men to expect non-nerdy, non-dorky, “hot” type popular sorority member women to be attracted to them?
     
    ************ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*************

    3. Do you think the bitterness of nerds and dorks at the fact that these “hot” Frat chasing girls are not choosing them is justified when there are plenty of OTHER young women on the campus who are more psychologically compatible with these guys available?

    ***************ABSOLUTELY NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!****************
    Although your use of the term “psychologically compatible” in this context really makes no sense.  What you really should say or mean is sexual value compatibility.

    My solution to the “problem”…. although at the time I didn’t realize it wasn’t a full solution was to increase my sexual value by completely transforming my physical appearance.  From about 22-25, I would always get such a kick and ego boost when I would run into someone from college, high school, childhood, and they would be like “dude, WTF happened to you, you look like a completely different person”.  I was still an inner nerd though inside a different appearance.
     
     
     
     

  • Mike C

    A more apt description would be that a woman loves only one man at a time, but that man is liable to change at any point. The man she actually loves is whoever she’s engaging in sexual relations with.

    Yes, Langley’s work and analysis makes this very clear that this is how it operates.  Now wives who are cheating will have sex with their husbands but the motivation is guilt and also to throw him off track.  The man she is cheating with has her attraction and emotional connection at that point.
     
    Long ago, when my marriage ended I also was not working so I had a ton of time.  At one point I think I spent a 1-2 week stretch for hours on end reading one of these cheating wives forums.  Gave me a great glimpse into the inner psychology of the typical cheating wive.  They almost backwards rationalize they are doing nothing wrong because they are “in love” with the other man.
     

  • Florence

    @ Terre and Mike C
    I think that you two are paranoid for no reason. If a guy manages to keep his gf happy by being attentive, cuddly and does not deprive her sexually or emotionally, why would she need to seek another man’s affection/sex?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Florence

      If a guy manages to keep his gf happy by being attentive, cuddly and does not deprive her sexually or emotionally, why would she need to seek another man’s affection/sex?

      I’m not sure if you are just stirring the pot here – I find it hard to believe you are serious. Do you have any idea how many men have been screwed over despite providing attention, cuddles and sex? Women want to be dominated, and this drive is strong during ovulation – when testosterone surges and the sex drive follows. This is about getting access to the sperm of a strong, dominant male who will protect and provide. That is the biological impetus.
      .
      The best is a mix of alpha and beta traits. Personally, I’ll go for the beta traits every time, but the guy has to bring dominance. If I can control him, we’re done. I tend to be independent and feisty, but I rely on my husband to reel me in, and call me out on my BS. If he didn’t do that, I’m not sure we would have made it. Dominance is that important to women.

  • Plain Jane

    If a spouse is cheating and doesn’t want to be found out they should meticulously perform all of their marital duties and act happy and pleased with their spouse, while nurturing secret thoughts of their beloved internally.  It actually adds to the excitement and can even “improve” the marriage, if you approach cheating in this way. 
    There is a type of rush or chemical high with juggling 2 good relationships at once.
    Don’t ask me how I know this  …  ;)
    Does anyone remember that song, “Torn Between 2 Lovers”?
    It explains how a woman can love more than 1 man at a time.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      It actually adds to the excitement and can even “improve” the marriage, if you approach cheating in this way.
      There is a type of rush or chemical high with juggling 2 good relationships at once.

      That is temporary, at best. I once knew a guy cheating on his fiance. He told me that being with the other woman actually made him appreciate his fiance more. He found that he really enjoyed spending time with her! I call BS on that. Secrets destroy trust, and relationships without trust are dead in the water.

  • Mike C

    I think that you two are paranoid for no reason. If a guy manages to keep his gf happy by being attentive, cuddly and does not deprive her sexually or emotionally, why would she need to seek another man’s affection/sex?

    Florence, the rate of female adultery has reached around 50-70% depending on the survey/study.
     
    Is it your position that 50-70% of husbands are being inattentive, not affectionate?
     
    I actually think you are somewhat right while simultaneously being naive.  I think for some women, it would take a ton for the wife to cheat.  The guy would probably at least be somewhat culpable.  On the other hand, I’ve come across some dirty skanks as well.  When I was in my 20s, I had a married woman flat out invite me back to her place that same night after about 30 minutes of conversation.  IIRC, she said her husband was out of town or something.
    .
    When I was bouncing…I saw shit on a regular basis, married woman, engaged women, you name it.  I’m guessing I’ve been around the block alot more then you have and seen alot more.  Its not paranoid when they are really out to get you.

  • Mike C

    It actually adds to the excitement and can even “improve” the marriage, if you approach cheating in this way.
    Wow, you really believe that?
    Florence, you still think I am being paranoid?  Read Plain Jane’s comment repeatedly until you GET IT.  You think that poor dope had a clue.

  • terre

    I think that you two are paranoid for no reason. If a guy manages to keep his gf happy by being attentive, cuddly and does not deprive her sexually or emotionally, why would she need to seek another man’s affection/sex?
    .
    Partly because of pure observation with my own partners over the years and partly because I have faith in no one; the only object I’ll have faith in is biological incentive. From an evolutionary perspective, the need to keep a woman on her toes so that she doesn’t stray makes perfect sense: why take her at her word when you’ve made a ‘commitment’ and stop running game on her? If I’m her center of resplendent desire and tumultuous lust, so much the better. I can take the accompanying scorn like water under a bridge. If I’m her “dependable, good-hearted provider” I have reason to worry, and it means I’ve done something drastically wrong. The female sex drive is predicated on emotional waltzing, and female fidelity is predicated on the sex drive itself.

  • terre

    Like Mike C said, it’s quite surprisingly fortuitous that Plain Jane should speak from the horse’s mouth, so to… speak. As I said, women love one man and one man only: but never doubt their ability to internalize a self-serving lie.

  • Plain Jane

    Florence says, “@Terre and Mike C, I think that you two are paranoid for no reason. If a guy manages to keep his gf happy by being attentive, cuddly and does not deprive her sexually or emotionally, why would she need to seek another man’s affection/sex?”
    —–
    Generally this is true for an overwhelming percentage of women.  The person above who suggested keeping your wife on her toes by making her think she might lose you is NOT a good idea.  Some women, if they think their husband is attracted to other women or he has other options, will get very jealous and attempt to prove her desirabilty by flirting with other men and possibly crossing a few lines – all because the husband or boyfriend pushed her buttons.
    My advise to men would be to tread VERY CAREFULLY down that path. 

  • OffTheCuff

    I’m gonna answer the question posted to Mike, too!
    By admission you were a “dork/nerd” type.  Yet you were attracted to the type of non-nerdy, non-dorky girls who hung out with the Alpha Athelete Frat Boy types.
    What’s wrong with that?
    1.  Why were you not attracted to the young women on campus who were like you – dorky and nerdy?
    Very good setup with the false premise, here. We found the dorky/nerdy women cute too, as the non-nerdy girls. You know, it’s possible to like “nerdy” women and hot women, both. Just because we like them does not mean we approached them, or were rejected by them. On the contrary, we knew to leave them alone.
    2. Do you think its realistic for nerdy, dorky, men to expect non-nerdy, non-dorky, “hot” type popular sorority member women to be attracted to them?  Even going so far as to expect these “hot girls” to “save themselves” for an eventual LTR or marriage with them?

    No.
    Further, I don’t personally know any man so deluded. Anyone who does deserves the loneliness he gets.
    3. Do you think the bitterness of nerds and dorks at the fact that these “hot” Frat chasing girls are not choosing them is justified when there are plenty of OTHER young women on the campus who are more psychologically compatible with these guys available?
    No.

  • Plain Jane

    @ Susan, “This is about getting access to the sperm of a strong, dominant male who will protect and provide. That is the biological impetus.”
    A married woman ALREADY HAS ACCESS to a protector and provider – her husband.
    As far as “dominance” I’m not convinced “women want to be dominated” I don’t believe this.  If they desire a “dominant male” that means they want a man who is dominant in his field or dominant over others, like his social group, workplace, whatever.
    What human being on the planet wants to be “dominated” constantly by somebody else?
    Our drive is for freedom, not control.

  • OffTheCuff

    If a spouse is cheating and doesn’t want to be found out they should meticulously perform all of their marital duties and act happy and pleased with their spouse, while nurturing secret thoughts of their beloved internally.  It actually adds to the excitement and can even “improve” the marriage, if you approach cheating in this way.
    Superb rationalization. “Really, it helps the marriage if I lie to him!”
    There is a type of rush or chemical high with juggling 2 good relationships at once. Don’t ask me how I know this  … 
    I can explain – either you are a liar and cheater, or you have a friend that is, and are happy to help her out.
    Your true stripes are showing. Keep it coming, I look forward to it.

  • terre

    What human being on the planet wants to be “dominated” constantly by somebody else?
    .
    I could show you the world, princess.

  • Lupo

    @Susan: “I didn’t realize you aren’t in the U.S.”
    I am as American as hot dogs and apple pie and I manage being so right here in the US. But I’m a dude, and I don’t watch TV or popular movies. I suspect a lot of dudes don’t know much about celebrities. When I want to chill, I read books written by Romans. Others watch sports.
    I think you women folk are wrong about the uncertainty thing. While some women are quite content without a lot of wacky emotional turmoil, they’re a very small minority in the US. What Geoff is describing, “keep her off-balance, giggly, then sad, then happy, then worried you might leave, then laughing, then off-balance again” is going to be very good advice for 99% of men shacked up with American women. Yes, I realize this sounds vaguely abusive: the thing is, if a woman has sat on a couple dozen peens in her lifetime: she’s functionally already been abused, and so she requires this to experience the emotion approximating love. In the old days, women admired their men, because their men supported them, and because women used to be convinced they were the weaker sex. Now a days, a married man is being compared to the other 11 (or 110) guys she slept with in college; the ones who already demonstrated their higher value to their husbands by loving and leaving them. It’s sick, but that’s how people work. I’m not saying this to justify my own behavior, or because I’m happy with this state of affairs: I’m saying it because it’s a fact. Chicks dig soap operatic obsessing and over analyzing. Lord knows, men wish they didn’t, but they do.

  • Mike C

    As far as “dominance” I’m not convinced “women want to be dominated” I don’t believe this.  If they desire a “dominant male” that means they want a man who is dominant in his field or dominant over others, like his social group, workplace, whatever.
     
    I’m really struggling to find the right word…I don’t know a word that captures the essence of it.  Obviously, women don’t like to be dominated in the sense of being bossed around.  “Get me my slippers, bitch” isn’t going to work.  The response to that is going to be “fuck you asshole”
     
    But the absolute worst thing a guy can do is be the “Yes, dear” type.  That won’t work and will kill attraction/respect.  If you don’t realize that, then you really haven’t examined your own nature.
    Maybe the concept is subtle respectful authority.  Not sure if that quite captures it either, but I know what it is.

  • Plain Jane

    ” Chicks dig soap operatic obsessing and over analyzing.”
    Hmmmm…
    Like THIS?….
    ” “keep her off-balance, giggly, then sad, then happy, then worried you might leave, then laughing, then off-balance again”
    Sounds like a lot of “obsessing and over analyzing” there.
    Let me ask this, do people with JOBS and KIDS actually have the time to ” “keep her off-balance, giggly, then sad, then happy, then worried you might leave, then laughing, then off-balance again” ????

    How do they manage?

  • terre

    Maybe the concept is subtle respectful authority.  Not sure if that quite captures it either, but I know what it is.
    .
    The essence is to supplant truth into her life by being a world unto yourself (which is why game theory so strongly advocates showing that you can live without her). In a sense, this isn’t a sex-segregated distinction by biology but by consequence of the traditionally male role, which is expendable (and ergo character-forging). When she has you as an entire coherent existence without any influence from herself, she’ll fall in love. It’s kind of a weak clinging to the strong thing.

  • terre

    Let me ask this, do people with JOBS and KIDS actually have the time to ” “keep her off-balance, giggly, then sad, then happy, then worried you might leave, then laughing, then off-balance again” ????
    How do they manage?
    .
    They often don’t.

  • Mike C

    Personally, I’ll go for the beta traits every time, but the guy has to bring dominance. If I can control him, we’re done. I tend to be independent and feisty, but I rely on my husband to reel me in, and call me out on my BS. If he didn’t do that, I’m not sure we would have made it. Dominance is that important to women.
     
    I’m thinking another way to say this is that women do NOT want to be bossed around, at the same time THEY ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT feel attraction for a man THEY CAN BOSS AROUND.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I’m thinking another way to say this is that women do NOT want to be bossed around, at the same time THEY ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT feel attraction for a man THEY CAN BOSS AROUND.

      This is it exactly. Especially for women raised post-Women’s Movement. Most of us will be somewhat independent in spirit, but we’ll want a man who knows how to crack the code and find the feminine in us. Dominance is the key.

  • Plain Jane

    “But the absolute worst thing a guy can do is be the “Yes, dear” type.  That won’t work and will kill attraction/respect.  If you don’t realize that, then you really haven’t examined your own nature.”
    Or its because it isn’t part of my nature.
    I love the “yes, dear” types.  They inspire me to appreciate them.

  • Florence

    “This is about getting access to the sperm of a strong, dominant male who will protect and provide. That is the biological impetus.”
    – Thus, it is best to just to try to marry one at the first place. I don’t think women should get married to a good beta, just to be “married”. There has to be a certain level of attraction/lust, etc.
    I don’t know about others, some may consider me naive, but I just have very strong morals. Whatever the reason, if I am not satisfied in a marriage, then I’d rather ask for a divorce than go cheat.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Florence

      if I am not satisfied in a marriage, then I’d rather ask for a divorce than go cheat.

      Honesty is better than deception, but staying the course to work things out is the best option. Most people throw in the towel too soon, IMO. I will say that if one partner cheats, all bets are off. The other person should not be held to any expectation to make the marriage work. They may choose to, but should not be expected to. Cheating breaks all promises.

  • Florence

    I do not like to BOSS around or to be BOSSED around. I feel that decisions in a relationship should be somewhat 50/50, with that being an exception to certain particular areas of the relationship, where one of the two partners is more knowledgeable. I know that investing is not my strong area, so I’d probably let him make most of the decisions there. I do enjoy social dominance from a guy and guys who always seek my approval repulse me. I just wouldn’t marry one of them in the first place.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I feel that decisions in a relationship should be somewhat 50/50, with that being an exception to certain particular areas of the relationship, where one of the two partners is more knowledgeable.

      A man who displays dominance doesn’t necessarily make all the decisions. It’s more a question of demeanor, and attitude. My marriage is very egalitarian – my husband would not make an important decision without my agreement. But he’ll be very quick to call me out on certain attention-seeking behaviors. He’s very easygoing in general, but if I act spoiled, entitled or demand the spotlight, he’ll tell me to knock it off. On the other hand, I’m very gregarious, and he loves how I can work a crowd – he loves bringing me to work events, for example. It’s a question of balance, context, and degree. And I tend to tease him out of his shell a bit, as he is reserved by nature.

  • OffTheCuff

    Or its because it isn’t part of my nature.
    I love the “yes, dear” types.  They inspire me to appreciate them.

    Great! How many of them are you still in a monogamous relationship with, right now, and for how long?

  • Mike C

    @ AnonF
    A good rule of thumb for lifestyle minimum is whatever a person grew up with.  A woman from a $650K/yr family earnestly convincing herself that she will be happy raising kids on $90K/yr (a respectable stable income in a general sense) if she’s married to a nice enough guy is very risky in my opinion. She shouldn’t be pressured to delude herself and him just to make some abstract moral point about materialism.

     
    Well, I mostly agree with your point here simply because the person coming from the 650K lifestyle is probably going to remain convinced they “need” that lifestyle to be “happy”, and thus will come to resent the 90K guy for not meeting her “needs”.
     
    Perhaps off-topic, but there have been some interesting studies done on the correlation between wealth and happiness.  They clearly show beyond a certain point that more money, more STUFF doens’t make you more happy but few people are capable of the introspection to realize that.  I’ve got a MBA from a top school, and I did a stint of unemployment working as a bouncer.  I learned a lot.  I lived on so little money it would blow your mind.  And you know what I was happy.  I had more time to spend with my GF, to take walks, and more time to just enjoy vocational stuff.  Of course, real life is real life and bills gotta get paid but the person who lives on the edge of financial disaster to have a 3000 sq ft home instead of 1500 sq ft isn’t really happier because of it.  They’ve just “bought the lie” that more, bigger stuff makes them a “success”
     
     
    Whatever way a woman comes out, the general topic of money has to be very carefully considered. Unfortunately the American attitude is that frank financial discussions are somehow crass and offensive, and I think this gets a lot of people in trouble.
     
    Absolutely agree with that.  A big reason for divorce is money and finances.  My GF and I have thoroughly discussed our future finances and financial lifestyle.

  • Mike C

    Or its because it isn’t part of my nature.
    I love the “yes, dear” types.  They inspire me to appreciate them.

    Appreciate them???  OK
    Forgive the crassness, but do they get you wet?  Doubt it.

  • Florence

    @ Mike C
    Yup, those types of guys don’t get most women wet at the first place.However, there are exceptions such as PJ. Just don’t be “pussy whipped”. Just be yourself. If a woman is doing/saying something you disagree with, call her BS, don’t be the “yes dear” types. I will repeat this, be yourself, whether you are the nice guy, the dork, or the player. If a woman likes your style she will stick around. Different women like different things. Quite a lot of women like the geeky/dorky types of guys, provided they are decently looking. I would love one of those guys much more than a dumb football payer.
    I have turned down a few very nice beta guys because I didn’t feel it for them. At one point I thought I was being too selective or unrealistically selective, but I don’t want to end up breaking the poor dude’s heart down the road.
    What’s annoying is when women marry those guys, then end up realizing they aren’t happy with them. Why do they do that? Maybe they wanted to have a low number and thus married the first nice dude who asked for their hand.
    I think that it is important for anyone whether a man or a woman to play the field a bit before marrying in order to discover personality traits in different partners and see what best suits them for down the road.

  • Plain Jane

    Whatever way a woman comes out, the general topic of money has to be very carefully considered. Unfortunately the American attitude is that frank financial discussions are somehow crass and offensive, and I think this gets a lot of people in trouble.
     
    Absolutely agree with that.  A big reason for divorce is money and finances.  My GF and I have thoroughly discussed our future finances and financial lifestyle””
    —–

    Weren’t you the guys arguing that money shouldn’t be an issue for a woman when choosing a mate, that “for richer or poorer” is the ideal?

    *
    “Great! How many of them are you still in a monogamous relationship with, right now, and for how long?”
    —–
    I was with one for a good amount of time but he had to return to his country.  He asked me to move there but I didn’t want to.
    Since then I’ve focused on inter-racial dating with other Americans rather than men from abroad.
    Finding “Yes Dear’s” amongst my fellow citizens is harder because, as we have been discussing here, our culture is different, more egotistical and self-centered.  American men are less open to affectionate and romantic expression, but I’ve met some men that are workable.

  • Geoff

    @Plain Jane,
    “By admission you were a “dork/nerd” type.  Yet you were attracted to the type of non-nerdy, non-dorky girls who hung out with the Alpha Athelete Frat Boy types.
    What’s wrong with that?
    PJ-1.  Why were you not attracted to the young women on campus who were like you – dorky and nerdy?
    .
    G-Dorky men find attractive women who resemble Catherine Zeta Jones (how do I put this?)…attractive.  Just like women who are a 6-7 find George Clooney attractive.  However, the dorky guys know they’re not going to get CZJ.  Women, on the other hand, hold out forever since George Clooney types are boning them twice a week in college.  The 6-7 women think it means something and continue holding out for one of them to commit.  Then the boning stops.  Then the recriminations against men begin.  Then the 30th birthday as a single woman rolls around.  And a cat purchase is made.


    PJ-2. Do you think its realistic for nerdy, dorky, men to expect non-nerdy, non-dorky, “hot” type popular sorority member women to be attracted to them?  Even going so far as to expect these “hot girls” to “save themselves” for an eventual LTR or marriage with them?
    .
    G-Please find us a nerdy, dorky man who’s a 5 or 6 in the looks department who will turn down a relationship with a girl who’s a 5 or 6.  Go ahead, I’ll wait.  I can find you dozens of women in the same situation who WILL turn down a guy in their looks range.  They’re at the pet store on Friday nights, buying cat food.


    PJ-3.  Do you think the bitterness of nerds and dorks at the fact that these “hot” Frat chasing girls are not choosing them is justified when there are plenty of OTHER young women on the campus who are more psychologically compatible with these guys available?
    .
    G-The bitterness of nerds and dorks isn’t aimed at Catherine Zeta Jones turning them down.  It’s aimed at the fat (15-30 pounds overweight) college junior female who thinks that hot lacrosse player who nailed her twice last semester is going to commit to her sometime before senior year.  And she has a cat poster in her dorm room that says “You Hang In There!”

  • Plain Jane

    Zeta Jones and Clooney????  LOL.  You’ve got to be my parents age if you are referencing them as “hotties”.  Zeta must be close to 50 by now and Clooney close to 60 – with lips so thin they don’t even exist!

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Mike C

    Curious on something.  I had thought you knew or interacted with a good number of quite attractive 20-somethings.  This debate on whether or not they get approached often appears to be taking on an enigmatic tone.  Couldn’t you simply ask a bunch of  them on how often total male strangers start up conversations.

    I’d bet for the truly super attractive, 8+ it isn’t that high simply because most men lack the confidence and boldness to approach them.

    Will do! I’ll report back.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Ms. Walsh,
    Replies below:
    .
    SW: This is it exactly. Especially for women raised post-Women’s Movement. Most of us will be somewhat independent in spirit, but we’ll want a man who knows how to crack the code and find the feminine in us. Dominance is the key.
    .
    O: Yes, but the big question here is WHY should a Man have to “know how to crack the code” and “find the feminine” in any Woman? I mean, isn’t this the 21st century? And, aren’t we talking about grownassed adults? Why can’t she simply come to the table sans the BS and get on with it? Do you see how all of this makes more and more guys – even those who can come with it – just not want to be bothered – especially when the Women in question ain’t all that to begin with? Hmm?
    .
    O.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Obs

      WHY should a Man have to “know how to crack the code” and “find the feminine” in any Woman?

      It is not a question of should or what is right and fair. Men who either sense this innately or learn it will have an advantage, as you know. It’s about understanding female psychology. I can understand why men would not want to be bothered, and that’s certainly their choice. From a female POV, men who don’t want to be bothered are mostly guys who aren’t very good at it to begin with, and so are not much missed in the mating pool, at least in the short-term. Over time, of course, the withdrawal of men leads to declining rates of marriage and education, which we are seeing now.

      especially when the Women in question ain’t all that to begin with? Hmm?

      Haha, since I was talking about myself, I’ll just ignore this insult. Presumably, if a woman “ain’t all that” she won’t get a guy who’s all that, except for a quick roll with alpha.

  • Stephenie Rowling

     
    “I don’t think many promiscuous guys would have trouble being loyal husbands because as many of the male commenters have explained, it is just about sex for them, especially when young.”
     
    Not so sure about that. Many guys just have sex do to opportunity, but sex can become a drug and certain guys can become adiccted to variety and once in a commited relationship they start to itch for the old days, also they could had used everything to get laid, lie, cheat, betray…But given that all of them are having sex you can’t tell for sure wich ones are being able to commit and which ones will not, why risk it? I know I wouldn’t. I have some Alpha friends and they are only getting worse with time, needing more variety and engaging on all sorts of sex acts because they don’t feel the same way with normal sex anymore. So yeah I wouldn’t call a woman that tries to get a guy with low numbers insane.
     
    The potential for a woman to marry an alpha male who might cheat is a small price to pay for many women if it gets them an alpha (one downside, lots of upside)
     
    It might be from the biological POV, but real life plays a part on all this. I doubt Tiger Wood’s wife was beating him out of joy, neither Sandra Bullock or Eva Longoria are celebrating all the emotional investment they did on their partners. The upside is just temporary and illusory after they pass the genes (if they do) their job is done, so its not a good investment anyway. Specially if you think you are going to be raising a little Alpha that might start raising issues as soon as he his puberty. I have a friend that got pregnant from an Alpha on HS and her 14 year old son is already trying to bang around leaving her with extra job as a mother, so yeah bad investment all around.
     
    “That is NOT love.  That is infatuation/lust.  That eventually fades, and has to be replaced with LOVE if a relationship is to last.  Love is spiritual, it comes from the soul, not a cocktail of chemicals.  Love is ALSO A DECISION.  Think about it.”


    Yes, Langley’s work and analysis makes this very clear that this is how it operates.  Now wives who are cheating will have sex with their husbands but the motivation is guilt and also to throw him off track.  The man she is cheating with has her attraction and emotional connection at that point.
     
    I think you are right, but a woman that values a man will know that he is more than the chemicals and thrill. A smart woman that is, but I think this is a wisdom that older women are supposed to past and nowadays mothers and daughters don’t have the same talks about men and relationship they did before so no wisdom passed and they don’t know that is totally normal that after a time the thrill is gone so you keep going for the rest of the traits your husband has. That is why is wiser to select the guys per traits first and then fall in love.
     
    Generally this is true for an overwhelming percentage of women.  The person above who suggested keeping your wife on her toes by making her think she might lose you is NOT a good idea.  Some women, if they think their husband is attracted to other women or he has other options, will get very jealous and attempt to prove her desirabilty by flirting with other men and possibly crossing a few lines – all because the husband or boyfriend pushed her buttons.
    My advise to men would be to tread VERY CAREFULLY down that path.

     
    PREACH IT SISTER!
    One of the reasons I allow myself to love my husband so deeply is because I feel emotionally safe with him (meaning he is not a cheater) if I were thinking that when he is working late he is banging some of his students I would totally start to take my emotional distance from him to protect myself from heartbreak. So no this strategy doesn’t work with me at all.
     
    “keep her off-balance, giggly, then sad, then happy, then worried you might leave, then laughing, then off-balance again”


    Chicks dig soap operatic obsessing and over analyzing. Lord knows, men wish they didn’t, but they do.
     
    Mmm I do wonder if women that engage on other activities that safely provide them with pheromones and thrill chemicals are less likely to cheat? I mean like skydiving, and doing sports but also if you read many of the romance novels/movies you can revive the feelings of being infatuated very vividly.
    That will explain the huge market of this types of books and movies. Sluts romantic? Or the “nice girls” are the romantic ones? My best friends that are faithful are huge fans of trashy novels and movies, and I do have a friend that is cheating that barely ever watches then and another one that is always unhappy on her marriage even though her husband is a very nice guy that tries to please her all the time. All this is anecdotal of course but if we could tip beta guys into nurturing this habits on safes ways for their partners so they keep the chemistry alive it might be a good strategy for couples.
     
     
    But the absolute worst thing a guy can do is be the “Yes, dear” type.  That won’t work and will kill attraction/respect.  If you don’t realize that, then you really haven’t examined your own nature.
    Maybe the concept is subtle respectful authority.  Not sure if that quite captures it either, but I know what it is.

     
    I think the word you are looking for is that has a spine. I mean even if women should have realistic standards they want someone they can respect. Respect and love are important and you can’t respect a person that doesn’t even respect himself …unless you are a dominatrix or something like it.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      The potential for a woman to marry an alpha male who might cheat is a small price to pay for many women if it gets them an alpha (one downside, lots of upside)

      It might be from the biological POV, but real life plays a part on all this. I doubt Tiger Wood’s wife was beating him out of joy, neither Sandra Bullock or Eva Longoria are celebrating all the emotional investment they did on their partners. The upside is just temporary and illusory after they pass the genes (if they do) their job is done, so its not a good investment anyway. Specially if you think you are going to be raising a little Alpha that might start raising issues as soon as he his puberty. I have a friend that got pregnant from an Alpha on HS and her 14 year old son is already trying to bang around leaving her with extra job as a mother, so yeah bad investment all around.

      Cosign this. The meme of 5 minutes with an alpha being better than a lifetime with beta is pure BS, IMO. Just because Charlie Sheen can get a woman who is willing to trade fame and fortune for quality of life, doesn’t mean that your average alpha can pull that, or that most women wouldn’t commit seppuku rather than marry him.

  • http://www.metapunk.org Andre

    I’m a little late to this discussion, but I just wanted to post some reflections I had after reading the article.
    Basically, I think there may be some truth to it.  I’m not exactly a STEM guy–maybe equal parts sciencey / artsy (my goal in life is to be science fiction writer) and 98% shy…  I was definitely considered a nerd in high school, and I can tell you, after all the flak I took there, both from “alpha” males and girls trying to be popular, I really can’t approach women very well.
    But when I think about it, if I were able, which women I’d ask out depends on the difference between “pretty” and “beautiful.”  There are lots of pretty 10’s who are also, basically, vain and shallow and just loathsome to be around.  They’re aware of their looks, and quick to identify and reject guys like me (too weird / geeky / awkward / anxious, not fashionable enough, whatever)… which really hurt for a long time, until I realized that I really don’t want to be around such unpleasant people.
    Then there are women who, physically, might be less than a 10 but are still somewhat pretty (6-8, give or take), who are also awesome, interesting, and genuinely caring people.  That’s the ideal woman.
    Just to take your two photographs as examples: both women are pretty, but the girl in the second picture I find more attractive.  It’s not because she’s inherently prettier, but because she seems more interesting.  I’ll admit, her makeup adds to sex appeal, but I don’t find her more attractive because I think I can get into her pants easier.  Instead, her “freakish” style suggests she’s a bit of an outcast, which I can identify with, while the other woman looks like the popular prom queen type who used to tell me what a loser I was in high school.  Then again, more recent experience says the freaky girl probably has identity issues… so, your mileage may vary. And that’s where it helps to have an actual conversation to find out what the real story is.
    Of course, having said all that, I still can’t really approach women, but when I even think about asking someone out, if she’s super-hot, I’m far more likely to assume she’s going to be nasty to me than if she’s more average looking.  In a sense, I feel like a super-hot woman can’t help but be aware of it, or preoccupied with it.  I suppose there are plenty of non-10 women who are still vain and unpleasant, just as I’m sure there are super-models with great personalities, too.
    If I met one, I probably still couldn’t ask her out–but this time because I wouldn’t feel worthy of her, not because I thought she’d reject me harshly.  I would reject myself instead.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Andre, welcome and thanks for leaving a comment!

      Then there are women who, physically, might be less than a 10 but are still somewhat pretty (6-8, give or take), who are also awesome, interesting, and genuinely caring people. That’s the ideal woman.

      I admire and respect this POV – I can assure you it’s welcome news for women of that description, especially the 6s, who have often felt passed over, as you have.

      Just to take your two photographs as examples: both women are pretty, but the girl in the second picture I find more attractive. It’s not because she’s inherently prettier, but because she seems more interesting.

      Hmm, you’re the first person to say that, and I think that’s a good point. The second one does seem more interesting in the sense that she’s willing to buck convention and not afraid of displaying her identity. And your interpreting the pics in light of your own history makes sense, and is unavoidable in any case.
      .
      Re your feelings of anxiety about approaching women, there are lots of guys who post here who have had that experience and learned some Game to deal with it. If it’s something you’d like to work on, I encourage you to explore it. It’s difficult but rewarding, if the men here are any indication.

  • GudEnuf

    Most young women today are strong and independent, and most of them want men to pick up the tab.

    What young women take a major role in the feminist movement? Can you name them? I am aware of a small handful, because of feminist blogs, but much of their energy goes into sex-positivity. There are a few also interested in sexual violence.

     
    Well for one, all the bloggers on sites like Feministing. And then there’s all the women’s studies majors. And then there’s people who regularly get involved with organizations like NOW, even if they don’t take a leadership role. I have never heard one of those people demand that “real” men need to “bring back chivalry”.
     
    There are some psuedo-feminists (ie. Lady Raine, my ex) who think men should pay the tab. But these women tend to have little education and investment in the feminist movement. (This is not a “no true Scotsman” argument. I can be proved wrong if you find a person who has contributed substantially to feminism and still believe in benevolent sexism, Until then, I’m right.)
     
    P.S. You will be amused to know I am now enrolled in a Women’s Studies class. It is a total vag-fest, and the women here have an uncommon perspective on dating.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Well for one, all the bloggers on sites like Feministing. And then there’s all the women’s studies majors. And then there’s people who regularly get involved with organizations like NOW, even if they don’t take a leadership role.

      It was the bloggers that I was thinking of as the handful of women who identify strongly as feminists. I do not know a single woman involved with NOW. I do know several women involved with Planned Parenthood, who work for choice, but that’s not the same thing. As for the Women’s Studies majors, I believe many are “non-cisgendered” as feminists like to say, and therefore are not relevant to our discussion. They would be if they were bummed about hooking up, but I haven’t found a women’s studies major yet who said she was.

      P.S. You will be amused to know I am now enrolled in a Women’s Studies class. It is a total vag-fest, and the women here have an uncommon perspective on dating.

      Haha, I am amused! I knew something was up with you. I hope it proves fruitful in every way that you desire.

  • Plain Jane

    @Andre, thanx 4 being honest and down to earth.  I also don’t know why many people here thought the 2nd pic girl would be “sluttier” than the 1st.  Because of hair color?  So many kids go through a punk/goth/emo stage in their teens – its a fad.  Moreover the 1at pic girl looks like she’s naked.
    @Gudenuf, what do you mean by vag fest?
    Regarding guys paying for dates, I don’t expect it but I appreciate it when it happens.  Foreign men automatically do it smoothly and with no glitches.  Its unheard of for them to expect me to pay for a date, and insulting if I offer.  American men on the otherhand have absolutely no qualms about allowing a woman to pay for a date.

  • Höllenhund

    Let me ask this, do people with JOBS and KIDS actually have the time to ” “keep her off-balance, giggly, then sad, then happy, then worried you might leave, then laughing, then off-balance again” ????
    How do they manage?

    They often don’t.



    Exactly. This largely explains high divorce rates.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      This:

      “keep her off-balance, giggly, then sad, then happy, then worried you might leave, then laughing, then off-balance again” ????

      How many men here treat their partners this way or aspire to? I really want to know.

  • Lavazza

    SW: “What if he changes his mind? What about the 1/3 of divorces that men do initiate? If he falls out of love is he damaged or not? I’d rather take the jilted husband, myself.”
     
    I do not have any figures, but my impression is that most men who initiate divorce do it because they have found a younger woman. But for men who do not have kids it might be likelier that after some time they found out that differences have become harder to work through than earlier, which makes them call it quits.

  • Florence

    @ SW
    “I will say that if one partner cheats, all bets are off. The other person should not be held to any expectation to make the marriage work. They may choose to, but should not be expected to. Cheating breaks all promises.”
    – I Agree 100%.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “I probably should have elaborated on my date with divorced guy. He didn’t have kids. BUT, his ex wife was drama. She hurt him very badly. She cheated on him with a former boss of his (they used to work together) and he is not emotionally over it even though it was a couple of years ago. The date was great, meaning we had a good dinner, interesting conversation and a fun time dancing at a bar afterwards. But then once a bit of alcohol hit him he told me this sad story. This was the first date! I actually gave him a second chance at a lunch as a quasi-date, and he sort of apologized for the drunken TMI moment, but he launched into even more information. It was very apparent this guy was hurt. This is what I meant by baggage. ”
    .
    Christi,
    .
    Thanks for clarifying, it makes your comment much more understandable. He made a very bad decision – relationship and sexual histories should not be discussed in the first few dates, you just don’t have enough attraction and trust built to discuss your skeletons. Sad as it may sound, it’s incumbent upon hurt people to stay off the market until they can date in good faith, because otherwise you are using the other person on some level. (Tom Leykis himself has admitted that his third marriage failed because he got married on the rebound to “get back” at his second wife, and told the audience it wasn’t fair to his third wife.)
    .
    As I said before I don’t believe that rejecting a man for being divorced per se is particularly common. It’s an issue when the man makes it an issue (as in Christi’s case) or when the woman uses it as a pretext to break up with the man.
    .
    Generally speaking, women who really want to get married can’t afford to be TOO picky, and sometimes that will mean a man who has already been married. But I don’t think reason comes into play there anyway – if the man is attractive and provides a decent relationship experience in the moment, the hamster is going to overlook sound red flags, let alone unsound ones.

  • Octavia

    In this discussion alone, I’ve seen some people mention the effects of wars, Feminism, and the Civil Rights Movement on relationships.  There are many factors that influence a person’s choices.  However, at the end of the day, there are still choices to make on the individual level.  Feminism, one of the favorite evil forces on this site, doesn’t cause people to drink excessively, be abusive, decide to cheat, etc.  There are some people who would rather blame everyone and everything but themselves for their positions in life.  I don’t subscribe to enabling that kind of thinking.  Where is the focus on personal responsibility?
    Now, I’m interested in guys so I’m going to focus on them in this next paragraph…If a guy ever told me that he slept with a battalion of women because those women “made it easy,” I’d question his self-control while walking away from him. In what other ways does he just take what’s given to him without any thought of the consequences?  No movement can magically make a person any more or any less responsible.
    I used to work at a college.  If some of the comments on here are indicative of the kind of environment some of those kids were raised in, it explains those kids’ comfort with a lack of accountability.  Some of those people live their entire lives with the same stunted mentality.
    Regardless of what factors are around you, you still have a choice and you are still accountable for your actions.  You don’t get to push your stupidity or any other personal failings onto some movement or, if you really lack a backbone, an entire gender.
    Poor sexual choices and entering damaging relationships are symptoms of greater personal problems.  It might be time for some people to focus less on getting laid and thinking more about making wise choices overall.
     

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Talking about male promiscuity I remembered a movie :Don Juan de Marco starred by Johnny Deep. In that movie he ended up living on a harem and having sex with 3000 women, the movie starts with him profiling a woman and knowing exactly how to seduce her because of what he has learned, he is also seeking suicide because after being on the harem he meets the love of his life Doña Ana a virgin and when the moment of telling her his number arrives he is anxious and seem ashamed of it, and that is why she rejects him. Given that he didn’t slept with that many women because he was seeking it out but a lot has to deal with circumstances and the first time he actually pursued sex was when he was in love I would say he was indeed honest about commitment. But that is of course a movie.
    Given that many people here has mentioned Blue Valentine maybe it will be fun to have a movie forum talking about movies and the way they depict this issues.
     
    Also anyone here has read Sex at Dawn? Many feminists on Jezebel mention it specially when discussing that marriage is a male imposed institution without acknowledging the benefits it brings for women as well.
     
    @Octavia
    I don’t disagree with you, but personal responsibility and social norms are a complex matter, there had always been sluts, Alphas and cheating but society regulated them by the social benefits they would get out of their behavior having more or less around depending on it, even men are not immune to it if you check Victorian times and some other cultures male sexuality was as repressed as female one because it served society for the best and we all are part of our communities. I would say that there are a lot of people that will do what their culture benefits in greater numbers than what they personally think or feel about the issue. Not everyone is a leader a ton of people are just followers, if not then we wouldn’t have things like education and propaganda because people would not respond to it, that is not the case isn’t?
     

  • Lavazza

    “How many men here treat their partners this way or aspire to? I really want to know.”
     
    Well, I never have and I never have aspired to it either. After some time together an intelligent partner will also now when you are faking/exaggerating and when not. In my longest relation I dropped some real bombs like that during the first years, but they were not exaggerations but truly reflected my feelings, principles and convictions. And I am a mild mannered man who is not the least prone to exaggerations. For a woman craving drama that will not be enough after some time, but the point of a committed relation is stability without drama, so that you can raise children in a calm and stable environment.
    Nobody should start a family with someone for whom familiarity breeds contempt.

  • Octavia

    @ Susan: “Re your feelings of anxiety about approaching women, there are lots of guys who post here who have had that experience and learned some Game to deal with it. If it’s something you’d like to work on, I encourage you to explore it. It’s difficult but rewarding, if the men here are any indication.”
    I don’t think it’s enough to talk about guys needing to learn Game.  Some of the men who use Game start doing so after they’ve been hurt.  They use the techniques to run up a high number, get “revenge” on women, etc.  If a guy doesn’t have a basic level of respect for dealing with women, then that just perpetuates another set of problems. (By basic level of respect for women I mean not seeing us as fucktoys like what’s championed on blogs like The Spearhead and Citizen Renegade.)  Some of the Game theory proponents push it as a way to have men be in control.  However, men who focus on getting revenge on women are still lacking control and do some serious rationalizing to avoid the truth.  So, though Citizen Renegade’s tag is that pretty lies go to perish there, it doesn’t even stand up to scrutiny.
    There’s a difference between being in control and being controlling.  Game taken too far gets into the controlling territory.  Having good Game is like having good Leadership skills.  Leaders don’t have to announce that they’re in charge.  People know it and act accordingly.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      There’s a difference between being in control and being controlling. Game taken too far gets into the controlling territory. Having good Game is like having good Leadership skills. Leaders don’t have to announce that they’re in charge. People know it and act accordingly.

      Game is amoral – it’s only a tool that can be used for good or ill in influencing others. I think that most men who have social anxiety, particularly around women, are unlikely to want Game to pump and dump a bunch of women. They’re looking to get to a basic level of proficiency in approaching women. Of course, the worst guys, the ones using “Dark Game” probably thought of themselves as losers in the SMP to begin with. This cannot be controlled. It is up to women to think with their cerebral cortex and measure a man by standards for good character. If that comes with tight Game, great. If a guy’s actions don’t stand up to that kind of scrutiny, it’s the woman’s responsibility to walk away. No one needs to get played if they’re paying attention.

  • Geoff

    S- “keep her off-balance, giggly, then sad, then happy, then worried you might leave, then laughing, then off-balance again” ????

    How many men here treat their partners this way or aspire to? I really want to know.
    ——–
    G-Susan, maybe I should have said “I keep myself alpha to keep her entertained and keep the marriage fresh, and she works out and cooks for me  to make me happy and keep the marriage fresh”?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Geoff

      G-Susan, maybe I should have said “I keep myself alpha to keep her entertained and keep the marriage fresh, and she works out and cooks for me to make me happy and keep the marriage fresh”?

      OK, that’s reasonable and obviously works well for you. I just don’t believe that anyone can be happy if they’re always worried about losing someone they love. Of course, women may behave in such a way that they truly do risk having their partners leave, but that’s a different issue. I’m all for men keeping their wives attracted to them, but I don’t support any kind of emotional threats to accomplish that.

  • OffTheCuff

    The way for a man to beat a woman at the hypergamy game is to choose to couple with a woman lower than yourself.  This will fulfill her need to be with a man at a higher socio-economic (and perhaps even looks) level than herself.  She’ll be happy and content, hence you won’t have anything to worry about and thus will happy and content as well!Its a win/win
    Win/win? What does the man “win”, in this case, pray tell? It’s a win/win only insofar that the man exercises his desire for polygyny as much as her desire for hypergamy. That is: he gets to fulfill his need to be with multiple younger, hotter, women. Otherwise it’s win/lose.
    Hypergamy requires polygyny. Allow one to be socially acceptable, and the other will grow.

  • Octavia

    @ Stephenie Rowling:

    Yes, personal responsibility and social norms are complex matters. I just don’t believe in giving social influences more credence than they deserve. That’s because many people attempt to push off responsibility for their poor choices on some nebulous movements.

    As for the Victorian era, I’m not convinced we have an accurate picture of that or any other era. There’s the idea that sexuality was repressed but that’s relative. Repressed how? For which socio-economical sectors? For which races?
    Anyway, when we start asking serious questions, we begin to get a better picture of just how effective the social rules in a particular period were/are. In my view, they’re hardly ever as effective as some would like to claim, especially when looking at the actions of privileged individuals. Those who are privileged can afford to have others clean up their messes. The history books often don’t record that part of it.  [That's why in the U.S. some wax on and on about the Founding Fathers.  While others only see them as contradictory slaveholders.]  (By the way, I’m not stating you believe the Victorian era was good or bad.)

    Yes, most people are followers but those you follow are embodiments of what you value. Plus, regardless of the education or the propaganda present, we know that people can go against programming. That’s why revolutions happen. Then, things calm down and sometimes, some of the people who are benefiting from those very revolutions only seem to see the negative in those movements. I actually think that is what is happening with feminism now.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Plain Jane:
    Regarding guys paying for dates, I don’t expect it but I appreciate it when it happens.  Foreign men automatically do it smoothly and with no glitches.  Its unheard of for them to expect me to pay for a date, and insulting if I offer.  American men on the otherhand have absolutely no qualms about allowing a woman to pay for a date.
    I know what you mean! I just went on a couple dates with this German guy, and he told me he was confused when I offered to split the check on the first date. He said he wasn’t sure if that meant he wouldn’t see me again, haha. We also talked about the difference between American girls and European girls. He said that in Europe, at some point after extensively dating, both parties in the relationship just automatically assume that they are in an exclusive relationship. However that is not the case with Americans (as we know).
    That’s why I say to girls who are dating a guy for some period of time–don’t let yourself fall in this self-made quicksand pit of “we’re exclusive but he’s not yet my boyfriend.” If you are exclusive, he is your boyfriend. Don’t create more roadblocks for yourself!

     

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “I agree with AnonymousF. I am not the type of girl who digs guys with money, but a guy who hasn’t managed to save a penny in his bank account by a certain age (because he spent it all on buying chicks drinks at bars or for any other reason) is a guy I’d likely to DQ. Ability to save money reflects financial responsibility and that is important for a lot of women..and men.”
    .
    I’m cool with this as long as you are holding your man to the same standards you hold for yourself. If a chick is still being bankrolled by her father and has a bunch of credit card debt from buying clothes and going to clubs but demands that her man be well-heeled with a good nest egg and some disposable income to slough off to her (and I know more than one woman like this), she’s crazy.
    .
    I’ve found in my short life that financial responsibility is probably the biggest marker for whether someone is truly a short-term or long-term planner.
    .
    Not that I want to open a new can of worms (:P) but no one truly committed to financial responsibility would ask their prospective spouse to blow 2 to 3 months’ salary on a piece of jewelry as a prerequisite for marriage, and then claim that the process of saving that much money “shows he’s financially responsible.”

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “I know what you mean! I just went on a couple dates with this German guy, and he told me he was confused when I offered to split the check on the first date. He said he wasn’t sure if that meant he wouldn’t see me again, haha.”
    .
    Really? I became friends with a German young woman recently who told me in no uncertain terms that guys do NOT buy women drinks in the Fatherland. “If I let him buy me a drink what would he expect in return?” Perhaps clubs and dating are very different spheres?
    .
    I still believe that in early dating, who asks should pay – that usually turns out to be the man on the first date; blind dates (i.. setups) should expect to be split; and a woman should plan and execute (and pay for) at least one of the first three dates to show she’s got some skin in the game. (In my view, that’s a MUCH better signal of LTR fitness than feeling you have to get sexual early out of fear he’s going to date someone else if you don’t.)

  • Stephenie Rowling

    Yes, personal responsibility and social norms are complex matters. I just don’t believe in giving social influences more credence than they deserve. That’s because many people attempt to push off responsibility for their poor choices on some nebulous movements.

     
    I don’t think we are implying this, Neither I tried to say that, I doubt any woman that is alone now is blaming feminism for it, they are mostly blaming men, we are just analyzing why there is  decline of commitment and why there are less available males for women that desire a committed relationship.The fact that we are decades away from the first feminist movement and that there is a lot of blaming men for keeping “patriarchal” views just add to the list of reasons. I don’t think anything is that simple and probably there is a lot more at work that is why we are talking about it, understanding the problem might lead to some light at least for some. I always say that if a book changes a person’s life even if it was just ONE it was worth writing it, so all this is on the same line.
     
    As for the Victorian era, I’m not convinced we have an accurate picture of that or any other era. There’s the idea that sexuality was repressed but that’s relative. Repressed how? For which socio-economical sectors? For which races?
    Anyway, when we start asking serious questions, we begin to get a better picture of just how effective the social rules in a particular period were/are. In my view, they’re hardly ever as effective as some would like to claim, especially when looking at the actions of privileged individuals. Those who are privileged can afford to have others clean up their messes. The history books often don’t record that part of it.  [That's why in the U.S. some wax on and on about the Founding Fathers.  While others only see them as contradictory slaveholders.]  (By the way, I’m not stating you believe the Victorian era was good or bad.)
     
    Well of course people on power can bend with the rules, but do they form the majority of genetic pool or social population? Or are they educating/helping the masses to overcome social norms as they did? We discussed here that upper class are getting and staying married is the classes lower than theirs that are having pretty much all the issues. IME the upper class gets away with it because they have power to scape the consequences, and the really low classes can get away with it because they got nothing to lose the ones on the middle are the ones suffering because they both have enough to lose but not enough to avoid the consequences so they need to get smart to work something out and not self destruct.
     
    Yes, most people are followers but those you follow are embodiments of what you value. Plus, regardless of the education or the propaganda present, we know that people can go against programming. That’s why revolutions happen. Then, things calm down and sometimes, some of the people who are benefiting from those very revolutions only seem to see the negative in those movements. I actually think that is what is happening with feminism now.
     
    I know talking from experience here but I think majority cannot go against programming unless they have authoritative figures that make change appealing. If you take a look at major changes there is a set of conditions for it to change, thinkers making propaganda, campaigns and usually an (or a set) admired and respected people that look like they do want to better the lives of the other persons. That is what happened during the enlightenment, and pretty much every revolution. But is also historical truth that a lot of this movements/empires ended up corrupting themselves and going to an extreme that made things go worse. I won’t use the Hitler card but how about the French Revolution? or Stalin? Heck look at the Tulip fever everyone bought into the idea that owning flowers was the way and became insane over it, we had not really changed that much on a few centuries if you see how the economy collapsed it was pretty much the same pattern. Being part of the crowd is so easy that sometimes is hard to take a step back and notice. We are just discussing the fact that “free love” is not really free.
     

  • SayWhaat

    Really? I became friends with a German young woman recently who told me in no uncertain terms that guys do NOT buy women drinks in the Fatherland. “If I let him buy me a drink what would he expect in return?” Perhaps clubs and dating are very different spheres?
    .
    Well, our first date was a simple coffee date, not in a club, so I don’t know if that had anything to do with it.
    .
    Question: sometimes the guys I am dating insist on buying, and even when I offer to split the check, they still say “no no it’s fine, don’t worry about it” and I’ll only be able to buy a round of drinks for the both of us, max. I’ve also planned dates, but at the last minute something goes awry (blizzards can be huge cockblocks, you know) so I haven’t been able to fully execute them. Do you think this comes across as still showing “some skin in the game”? I really am trying to make an effort, but I don’t want to appear as though I’m taking advantage.

  • Mike C

    @ Susan
    How many men here treat their partners this way or aspire to? ***I really want to know.***


    Like most of this subject, things are not black and white, but exist on a continuum, and there is point where certain things can cross the line into unnecessary manipulation and cruelty.  That said, sometimes certain things are necessary.

    I love my GF deeply, and I would do just about anything for her.  On very rare instances though, hormones are hormones and they can cause some pretty crazy behavior.  I think any woman who looks deeply in the mirror and can be honest with herself will admit that.

    Quite awhile ago (might have been a few years), we had a very intense argument that I would say she was 99% responsible for, although now I don’t even remember what it was about.  I just remember hollering back and forth on the phone.  IIRC, I think I hung up on her.  Over the next few days, she called me repeatedly.  The me of 10 years ago would have probably answered the first call and continued on the discussion or whatever.  For 2-3 days, I didn’t answer any of her calls, and just let her leave voicemail messages.  There were certain things that I needed to “subcommunicate” with that tactic.  It accomplished what needed to be done.  Sometimes, those emotions do get a little out of control/a little wacky and as a guy you’ve got to either clearly demonstrate you are not going to respond to that nonsense or that you will.  If I had understood that back when I was with my first wife, I suspect things would have been much different although I believe fate has me with the right person now, so I am glad that didn’t work out.
    .
    I think it is also beneficial from time to time on an understated basis to demonstrate, or have situations where it is clear that other women find you sexually attractive.  Fact of the matter is that preselection switch is a powerful one, and whether a woman admits it or not, she likes that other women are attracted to her guy.  Again, this is best done on a very mild, understated, infrequent basis.  Blatantly excessively flirting/hitting on other women to induce jealousy would be pushing it too far.

  • Mike C

    Absolutely agree with that.  A big reason for divorce is money and finances.  My GF and I have thoroughly discussed our future finances and financial lifestyle””—–
    Weren’t you the guys arguing that money shouldn’t be an issue for a woman when choosing a mate, that “for richer or poorer” is the ideal?


    I wasn’t necessarily arguing that, although the 2 statements above are not contradictory.  Personally, I wouldn’t judge one way or another if money/income potential should be an issue for a woman when choosing a husband.  That is each woman’s prerogative.
     
    Again though, the math is the math is the math is the math is the math.  The higher income potential you demand, the more you shrink the pool of eligible guys.  The next question after that is what do you bring to the table.  If you aren’t super attractive, then why are one of those super high income guys going to go for you?
     
    Me personally, I can totally appreciate why a woman would want a stable income provider.  I would have ZERO interest in someone who wants a very high income (even if I had it) because it speaks to someone who puts a very high priority on materialism, consumerism, possessions, stuff and thus to me speaks to a character deficiency.



  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    SayWhaat,
    .
    “Question: sometimes the guys I am dating insist on buying, and even when I offer to split the check, they still say “no no it’s fine, don’t worry about it” and I’ll only be able to buy a round of drinks for the both of us, max. I’ve also planned dates, but at the last minute something goes awry (blizzards can be huge cockblocks, you know) so I haven’t been able to fully execute them. Do you think this comes across as still showing “some skin in the game”? I really am trying to make an effort, but I don’t want to appear as though I’m taking advantage.”
    .
    I think you are totally in the clear. If you offer and the man refuses you’ve done your part, and if he wants to play that game you shouldn’t feel obligated to him because of his generosity when he turned down your offer to cover. (Let me say that again because I’ve seen men play this sick game: you shouldn’t feel obligated to him because he chose to be generous in spite of your offer to cover your tab.)
    .
    I think you can understand I’m mostly talking about women who insist guys need to “sweep her off her feet” and pay for everything every time. Women who say love is priceless but that if he doesn’t shell out he won’t be getting any poonani. Those types of women are, quite honestly, hookers, and their entitled attitudes have created a LOT of PUAs and MRAs.
    .
    Then there are women who use trying to pay as a shit test, and if the man takes her offer, she writes him off. That’s entitlement AND dishonesty.
    .
    My mom tells me that in the 50’s/60’s “going steady” days (the heyday of male-provider dating to hear modern women talk) there was NEVER an expectation that the man was on the hook for all the cash. The guy would buy the movie tickets and the girl would buy the popcorn, or the guy would buy dinner and the girl would buy dessert. Another friend who went to Yale in the 50’s says that a weekend with your girl from one of the Seven Sisters was you arranging the lodging and her paying for the train ticket, or vice versa. Dating was also more class-restricted, so you had a better idea of what your date could afford since it was what you could afford. Although that’s incidental because all the carping I hear about men paying for dates comes from middle-upper class educated young women who may not be living large but can certainly afford to pay their way at an Applebee’s or Red Lobster once a week anyway.
    .
    Of course, all this dating negotiation has to be done with game – a guy asking straight up for her share, or a woman who doesn’t thank the man for his generous spirit, is probably not going to be going on another date.

  • Stephenie Rowling

    “Then there are women who use trying to pay as a shit test, and if the man takes her offer, she writes him off. That’s entitlement AND dishonesty.”
     
    I don’t know how it works there, but on my culture a man that doesn’t spent money on you is because he doesn’t value you on the long term. Money and emotional investment are somehow related, of course the woman should offer and pay for something or at least try not to be cheap in gifts for him but indeed if the man doesn’t pay for the first dates he is pretty much telling her that he doesn’t care.
    Of course is common wisdom that a man that earns 100 bucks and spent 50 on you shows more marriage material that a guy that earns 1000 and spent 100 on you so I will guess is the equivalent of the penguins and the stones at least on my culture not trying to get a high income male, but one that shows traits of being willing to provide for a family. That being said I did paid my part when I meet my now husband, because I don’t feel comfortable earning income and not sharing with a potential lifemate, but he never asked me to cover the expenses, because that will probably turned me off, The funny thing is that he often tells me that his former girlfriends (all American ladies) never offered to pay anything or made things easier for him when he visited, or never gave him a valentine present (I really impressed him with that one in my culture both male and female are expected to give gifts on that day) so maybe it was normal that they didn’t still I find strange that celebrating the day of love (and friendship) is supposed to be one sided. Makes no sense to me.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Stephenie Rowling
      It sounds like you come from a culture where the differences between the sexes are still acknowledged, even celebrated. One of the goals of feminism was to erase those, and that has happened to some degree in the U.S. However, there are still vestiges of the old system here. As Badger mentioned, women often did share some expenses. In the 70s and 80s, we didn’t tend to pick up a check in a restaurant, but would cook a nice dinner, get special tickets, that sort of thing. Most of us were poor students and didn’t do much expensive dating anyway. I will say that I have always given Valentine’s gifts – my husband and I exchange them still every year. They are not elaborate – usually a book. A woman who expects a big expenditure on Valentine’s Day is greedy, and if she doesn’t reciprocate, she’s an entitled princess. She will be nothing but financial trouble in any marriage.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Hi Ms. Walsh,
    Replies below:
    .
    “WHY should a Man have to “know how to crack the code” and “find the feminine” in any Woman?”
    .
    SW: It is not a question of should or what is right and fair. Men who either sense this innately or learn it will have an advantage, as you know. It’s about understanding female psychology. I can understand why men would not want to be bothered, and that’s certainly their choice. From a female POV, men who don’t want to be bothered are mostly guys who aren’t very good at it to begin with, and so are not much missed in the mating pool, at least in the short-term. Over time, of course, the withdrawal of men leads to declining rates of marriage and education, which we are seeing now.
    .
    “especially when the Women in question ain’t all that to begin with? Hmm?”
    .
    SW: Haha, since I was talking about myself, I’ll just ignore this insult. Presumably, if a woman “ain’t all that” she won’t get a guy who’s all that, except for a quick roll with alpha.
    .
    O: LOL – I wasn’t talking anout you per se, Ms. Walsh, but rather Today’s Women, and my questions are a heck of a lot more valid than you realize.
    .
    For one thing, you don’t get what I am asking: what makes Today’s Woman so great, so, “all that”, that a guy must/should “figure her out”? You see, with all due respect, you got it twisted – guys who have Game, understand exactly what I’m talking about here – and simply because a guy is outgoing and gregarious doesn’t necessarily mean that he understands these things I’m dropping on you and everyone else reading along.
    .
    Guys who have Game usually tend to be high value people; and as a result they tend to want to associate with people of likeminds. A lot of Women put ZERO thought into why it is worth a Man’s time and often money, to pursue, woo and then court her. Which explains why the vast majority of Women – you included – couldnt directly answer the questions I pose above. But it’s cool, I have no problem rephrasing:
    .
    Why should I, or any other guy, with GAME, have to “figure you out”? To what end? What are you bringing to the table, that makes it in my best interests to do so? THAT’S what Today’s Woman, especially if they hope to get good guys with GAME, really need to be asking themselves.
    .
    Lemme try and give you a bit of perspective on all this, if I may – and like you said recently, you’ve seen me in my element over at VSB…
    .
    As is common knowledge these days, the average Black Woman tends to be rather highly educated and by extension, gainfully employed. And most of these Women will think, much like their White counterparts, that this makes them a “catch” in any guy’s eyes.
    .
    NOT – they couldn’t be more wrong.
    .
    For one thing, Sistas with graduate degrees come a dime a dozen, and all that comes with it. A nice whip? *shrugs*. Nice spot – does it really take a handful of lambskins to do that? “Nice looking”?-yea, and…? There’s a lot of nice looking Sistas out there. Like I said – and…?
    .
    Do you see what I’m getting at here, Ms. Walsh? For guys like me, merely being “nice looking” “well educated” and able to purchase the baubles that this society says a gal should have, ain’t enough. And don’t even get me started on the other stuff that is associated with the minefield of approaching you ladies, LOL. Let the AFCs of the world handle that.
    .
    Brothas with Game don’t have to do such things. The action, comes to us.
    .
    Try again.:)
    .
    O.
     

  • Plain Jane

    “The me of 10 years ago would have probably answered the first call and continued on the discussion or whatever.  For 2-3 days, I didn’t answer any of her calls, and just let her leave voicemail messages.  There were certain things that I needed to “subcommunicate” with that tactic.  It accomplished what needed to be done.  Sometimes, those emotions do get a little out of control/a little wacky and as a guy you’ve got to either clearly demonstrate you are not going to respond to that nonsense or that you will. ”

    Good advice for women too.  I think my generation is too verbal.  All talk and not enough action.  Not answering calls for a few days can really cause the other person to stop and reflect about their role in their fight.  Then, when you DO answer the phone, they are humbled and ready to procede in a civilized, adult-like manner.
    Parents can do this with their kids as well.
    Allow them to calm down, give them (and yourself) space and alone time, then when they are self-regulated, re-engage them.

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Plain Jane,
    That doesn’t work with guys, not guys with solid options anyway. All it does is turns them off.

    Trust me on this.

    O.

  • AnonymousF

    @Badger
    “Not that I want to open a new can of worms (:P) but no one truly committed to financial responsibility would ask their prospective spouse to blow 2 to 3 months’ salary on a piece of jewelry as a prerequisite for marriage, and then claim that the process of saving that much money “shows he’s financially responsible.””

    Diamonds always seemed like a waste of money to me. But yes, a guy should care about his girlfriend’s financial habits if he’s considering marriage. A lot. So many normal-seeming people disconnect with reality when it comes to money, it’s ridiculous. It just so happened I was responding to a woman in my initial post on the issue.

    re:paying for dates
    I find it tacky to split a single check on a date, but I think taking turns works well or having one person pay for the movie and parking while the other gets dinner. If you want to split on a date (not a dealbreaker for me), do it clean down the middle. Do NOT NOT NOT try to figure out who owes the extra $2 for a soda. Ew. Unless your date ordered 3 lobsters to go, just suck it up.

    Also, a first date shouldn’t be expensive. I’d rather be invited to a place with $9-15 entrees because I’ll feel free to order whatever entree I want and maybe an appetizer and/or a dessert. If a guy takes me to a very expensive place, I’ll be self-conscious about ordering and won’t enjoy the meal as much.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Also, a first date shouldn’t be expensive. I’d rather be invited to a place with $9-15 entrees because I’ll feel free to order whatever entree I want and maybe an appetizer and/or a dessert. If a guy takes me to a very expensive place, I’ll be self-conscious about ordering and won’t enjoy the meal as much.

      Some of the best dates I ever went on were free or inexpensive. In fact, sitting down to dinner in a restaurant is more awkward and stiff than doing something with less pressure to deliver wit and eye contact. I’m going to write a post on the best cheap dates!

  • Plain Jane

    “We also talked about the difference between American girls and European girls. He said that in Europe, at some point after extensively dating, both parties in the relationship just automatically assume that they are in an exclusive relationship. However that is not the case with Americans (as we know).”
    ———————

    I once dated a guy who after 5 dates assumed we were exclusive and got pissed when I went to a Folk Festival with another guy.
    The bottom line in the US is that unless you sit down and have “the talk” – nothing should be assumed – from either the man or the woman’s side.
    *
    I also dated another guy, long distance, who claimed he was seeing only me.  Mind you, I did not ask him that or ask him to be exclusive to me, we were long distance so exclusive dating when you are long distance is a joke.  Nonetheless, he told me he was. 
    I did not some internet sluthing and found out that he was trying to meet other people online from his geographical area.
    Fair enough.  I also started to do the same. 
    He got pissed when I dated someone close to me.  I said, well, you’re TRYING to date women close to you while you CLAIM to be seeing only me, so what’s the harm if I see other people too, especially when I NEVER CLAIMED to be seeing only you?!?!?!
    THE BOTTOM LINE IN THIS MALE INITIATED DRAMA is……
    He had no intention of being exclusive with me, he just wanted me to think he was in order to CONTROL me – so that I would not see other men!!!!!
    And the fact that he ENDEAVORED to see other women but was not successful in getting dates, and the fact that I was – pissed him off to no end!

    LADIES, BEWARE MALE DRAMA AND CONTROL!

  • GudEnuf

    @Plain Jane
     
    A vag-fest is when there is a high ratio of vaginas to penises.

  • Geoff

    @Obsidian, “As is common knowledge these days, the average Black Woman tends to be rather highly educated and by extension, gainfully employed. And most of these Women will think, much like their White counterparts, that this makes them a “catch” in any guy’s eyes.
    .
    NOT – they couldn’t be more wrong.”
    .
    Dead-on accurate.  It amazes me that women think men give a damn about their education and/or income.  90% of women not only think that, they’re CONVINCED of it.  Want to know what men REALLY want you to be?  Be attractive, be young, be without drama, be a virgin (ideally).
    .
    Yet even the educated women have no leg up brainpower-wise that makes them impervious to men with game.  The only thing that makes women impervious to game is a rock-ribbed intent to wait until marriage.  Most alphas will bail, but the ones who MIGHT consider committing will have their eyes and ears perk up to find a woman in this day and age who hasn’t been on the carousel.

  • Geoff

    @Susan,
    “Of course, the worst guys, the ones using “Dark Game” probably thought of themselves as losers in the SMP to begin with…”
    .
    G-To use a dorky analogy:  use of The Force in Star Wars is presented as either good or dark.  There’s no example of middle ground.  Game however, can be anywhere on the morality spectrum.
    .
    Game use can be “good” if it’s being used to draw a woman to you that you might want to marry, or REMAIN married to (I put myself in this category now). 
    .
    Game can be somewhere in the middle morality-wise (you just want sex and women freely give it up to you cuz they’re not waiting for marriage).  I’d put myself in this category when I was a younger guy.
    .
    And I agree with Susan whole-heartedly that there are some practitioners of game who are dark operatives.  They’re using game to pump and dump women in the cruelest way possible to get revenge for something women did in the past.  These are the guys who get a girl in the sack and then get dressed while spewing insults at the woman they just screwed.  Dark game practitioners give 95% of all men the creeps.

  • Plain Jane

    “It amazes me that women think men give a damn about their education and/or income.  90% of women not only think that, they’re CONVINCED of it.”

    Haven’t the men already asserted here that they DON’T want to pay for dates and pay for all the living expenses after a possible marriage – including alimony?

    Ergo.  Men DO care about women’s income and ability to provide for herself and family.

  • terre

     
    Haven’t the men already asserted here that they DON’T want to pay for dates and pay for all the living expenses after a possible marriage – including alimony?
    Ergo.  Men DO care about women’s income and ability to provide for herself and family.

    I don’t think men ultimately really care about paying for dates or whatever if the girl is worth it. (Dates themselves are also a peculiarly American phenomenon, as is alimony). The objection to alimony is less that the woman should be capable of providing for herself after the dissolution of the marriage and more that it shouldn’t be any of his concern either way; his welfare should not be hers, either.
     

  • Stephenie Rowling

    @Susan
    We are in a transition but is not paradise even if we are trying to achieve equality without losing our femininity we still got a lot of men that abuse their power, there is a lot of cheating and American cultures sells fast, so the younger crowd are buying into this image of empowered slut that American movies and series sell. One of the reasons I married and American is because like here the younger women are offering sex with little requisites: mostly some help with bills and fun dates, thus a lot of a bit older (after 25 I would say) women are unmarried out of lack of men willing to commit and this women are indeed smart educated, but also feminine and eager to motherhood. So the hooking up culture seems like it has many things that can damage long term goals for this women, regardless if they have wife able skills or not the easy ones get a lot of advantage no to mention that in my culture there are not age taboo so a guy can decide to settle down at 50 or more with a 20 something and no one bats and eyelash so again hooking up culture is becoming a problem there as well, I don’t doubt that on a few years more women get affected there. Specially city girls girls on small places are still holding to their traditions and close to their families so they have someone to helps them to think twice before giving it up.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Stephenie

      American cultures sells fast, so the younger crowd are buying into this image of empowered slut that American movies and series sell.

      Yes, this is a serious problem. And of course it’s the worst of American culture that sells fastest. I can’t imagine there’s any way to stop it, though. I mentioned the other day that a woman I know was grabbed on the bottom while in Florence, and that she learned to stay away from spots frequented by Italian men. That’s because she was approached with offers of sex constantly, and when she declined the men declared, “But you are American!” As you can imagine, this was all quite disappointing, as a college student going to study in Italy is looking forward to meeting Italian guys… :) No more. American culture has destroyed that.

  • http://www.metapunk.org Andre

    @Susan, Octavia, Plain Jane
    Thanks for your good advice.  It’s not so much that I want to learn “Game” as just be more confident.  I guess that could be the same thing as game; I’m not sure.  I guess my concern is that I’d prefer to be candid and honest with someone than get involved in some sort of elaborate social game.  Not that I don’t want to have fun in dating, but that I have trouble with the idea of manipulating someone into liking me, or jumping through a series of hoops, or pretending I’m someone I’m not in order to impress someone.
    I’ve tried that in the past, and I hated who I turned into–and still wasn’t very successful anyway (any truly interesting women can see right through it).
    So, I think the real trick is finding the right person.  Someone who accepts me for who I am (granted, I’ve got to live up to certain standards, but not if they compromise my integrity)
    What I mean to say is, as much as women, in a very general sense, may like to test men and see if they can “crack the code” and so on, men can be a bit selective, too, and don’t necessarily have to cave to all the demands of those tests.
    There was a period of time where I was very angry at women in a general sense, and when an attractive woman actually tried testing me in one of these ways (trying to get me to compete with a male friend for her attention), instead of doing what she expected, I basically just ignored her. Paradoxically, she seemed more interested in me after that.
    But really, I’d like to just say something like: “Do you like me? Yes?  Then let’s go out and have fun together.  No?  Then it was nice meeting you, see you around.”  Simple.
    Sometimes, I think, people (men and women) make such a big deal of things and play all these head games, and then wonder why they’re not having any luck.  If they were just honest with each other, maybe they’d have more success.
    My problem is that I’m too shy to be honest directly, and too honest to play the head games.  I won’t give up the honesty, so it’s really just confidence I have to work on (well, that and actually meeting more people).  But I’ll get there.
     
     

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      What I mean to say is, as much as women, in a very general sense, may like to test men and see if they can “crack the code” and so on, men can be a bit selective, too, and don’t necessarily have to cave to all the demands of those tests.
      There was a period of time where I was very angry at women in a general sense, and when an attractive woman actually tried testing me in one of these ways (trying to get me to compete with a male friend for her attention), instead of doing what she expected, I basically just ignored her. Paradoxically, she seemed more interested in me after that.

      Ha, it sounds like you’ve already got some Game, good for you. I like your directness, and your honesty. It does sound like working on the shyness piece is the key. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is great for that, which basically just amounts to practice, practice, practice. Put yourself in situations as much as possible where you have small goals to meet in engaging them. Making an effort to meet more people is a great strategy, and it’s one that I recommend to everyone as a cornerstone of an effort to find a partner.

  • terre

    Andre, your motives are true, but it’s really just not how women are wired. Unfortunately you have to play the game to get a leg anywhere. (Incidentally, if you do find a woman who loves you for you, do give me a call. I have a bit of a bet going on with National Geo; you know, a cryptozoology thing).

  • hesaidshesaid

    So what about us cute 6 to 7 girls who give off the girlfriend/wifey vibe? What do we do? One of my best friend’s is in a frat, he knows the game pretty well and I asked him honestly why is it that guys are hesitant to approach me and he says i send off the gf vibe. Ya sure guys will pour shots down my throat, we’ll make small talk, and then the moment he sees a drunken slut he dips out of our conversation. I know I don’t intentionally try to send off the gf vibe..its subconscious–I don’t even want a relationship right now(frankly I’ve never committed myself to a real relationship cuz what I want is not out there right now so I don’t mind a hookup, a girl’s got needs) but is there anything I can do to not give off that ‘gf vibe’ in anyway besides dressing like a slut? I’ve had my fair share of hookups, but I’ve noticed that my past hookups took upto a week to actually “seal the deal” rather than happening that night or the next, as if they wanted to feel me out to get a sense of if I’m a freak or a good girl or not before they go for it. Any suggestions?

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @hesaidshesaid
      Thanks for leaving a comment, welcome. First, I would urge you to read the newest post about how casual sex is really not empowering for women, and leaves them feeling terrible most of the time. You are pursuing the wrong goals if you are working to get rid of your good girl image to achieve hooking up with jerks who avoid anyone with a gf vibe. I urge you to hold out for what you want. I know it’s not easy to stand on the sidelines when other women are slutting it up, but the same guys who in college want sluts will probably be more selective when they decide to marry. And the same women they banged in college will be “used up.”
      .
      A frat guy said to a pretty and wholesome young woman I know that she is cute but not hot. (She doesn’t do any random hookups.) This is what he told her:
      “You’re the kind of girl I’d want to bring home to my mom in about five years. But right now I want girls who I definitely could not introduce to my mom.”

  • http://obsidianraw.bravejournal.com Obsidian

    Plain Jane said:
    “Haven’t the men already asserted here that they DON’T want to pay for dates and pay for all the living expenses after a possible marriage – including alimony?
    Ergo.  Men DO care about women’s income and ability to provide for herself and family.”

    O: Once again, and for the umpteenth time from you: wrong. What we guys mean by saying the above, is that we simply don’t place as much stock in a Woman’s education and career that she does. It may or may not be a plus, but rarely more than that. It’s not what is central to our concerns. It simply isn’t. As for living expenses and the like, Men have proven themselves quite capable of managing that thank you very much.

    Now perhaps you can scroll back and actually answer my questions this time.

    O.

  • Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Classy Edition

  • Geoff

    @Andre,
    You’re acting as if women value the same things you do–honesty, integrity, and a committment to be true to your own self-image.
    .
    They DON’T value those things.  They value alpha and that’s it.  Trying to be holier-than-thou is going to totally fuck up your life if you expect women respond to the things YOU wish they’d respond to.  Learn game man.  It doesn’t make you a bad person, it makes you a man who’s learned what makes women tick (note: NOT what women SAY makes them tick, that’s bullshit).  As for your shyness:  try to remember you want a good woman, and in America that is a needle in a haystack.  When a woman rejects you, mentally note she’s a piece of straw and shrug it off.  Stay focused on the needle.
    ———–
    @hesaidshesaid,
    You’re trying to have relationships with guys your own age (college).  They just want sex, so you’re totally wasting your time.  Find guys 28-32 who have decided to stop fucking around if you want a chance at a relationship/marriage, and don’t give up the punani until marriage.  Susan’s quote about the frat guy should be printed and hung up on your dorm room wall:
    S–“A frat guy said to a pretty and wholesome young woman I know that she is cute but not hot. (She doesn’t do any random hookups.) This is what he told her: “You’re the kind of girl I’d want to bring home to my mom in about five years. But right now I want girls who I definitely could not introduce to my mom.”

    ———–
    @Plain Jane:
    Let me repeat so it sinks in:
    Men don’t give a shit how much money a woman makes.
    Men don’t give a shit how much money a woman makes.
    Men don’t give a shit how much money a woman makes.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    ““You’re the kind of girl I’d want to bring home to my mom in about five years. But right now I want girls who I definitely could not introduce to my mom.””
    .
    This is a prototypical example of Spengler’s Law. Chicks chasing alphas and frat guys chasing sluts create a market for each other, both saying they don’t want people to bring home to their parents until later in life (when they’ll probably match up with another “reformed slut”/”reformed douche.”)
    .
    If HSSS wants to convert to being somebody’s sex toy I don’t have any advice – that’s the opposite of what this forum is about.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    ““Haven’t the men already asserted here that they DON’T want to pay for dates and pay for all the living expenses after a possible marriage – including alimony?”
    .
    First off, alimony is not an “expense” – alimony (a claim on your ex’s future income) is slavery and nothing less.
    .
    On careers, you’re conflating several ideas into a (possibly unintentional) strawman.
    .
    First, a woman’s career is not a sexual turn-on for a man the way a man’s is for many (but not all) women. Girls who think “well I like guys who are climbing the corporate ladder so why don’t they like ME for
    .
    Second, a woman’s career IS important for lifestyle management reasons – things like is one spouse going to be the “earner” and the other has a flexible career for child-raising, what lifestyle does the couple want and how much is each going to contribute, how flexible is one career if the other spouse gets transferred to a new city, what if someone gets laid off, etc.
    .
    For example, guys that work in the construction industry have been shredded in the last three years (nobody’s building); if their wives are just stay-at-home moms their families and marriages are in big trouble. Are both spouses on the partner track? That makes it tough if one gets recruited to a new firm in another city.
    .
    Third, careers are important for compatibility reasons – do you consider your spouse’s work to be important to society, can you be proud of their effort on the job, does it bring good (or bad) people into your lives,
    .
    I really like a woman who has a passion outside of her friends and her relationship. There’s a balance. Ball-busting women whose careers come first are just not good LTR prospects. But neither are women whose jobs are just passing the time until Prince Charming shows up and funds her dream sit-at-home lifestyle. Unfortunately I know several women in the latter category (and frankly I think it’s a huge waste of our nation’s higher educational infrastructure to “educate” these people who, if their plan works, will drop out of society by age 28 and do nothing but consume).

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    Geoff,
    .
    I think you misread hesaidshesaid – she said she WANTS to hook up and doesn’t want a relationship, but guys say she gives off a “wifey vibe” that makes the guys go away.
     

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      she said she WANTS to hook up and doesn’t want a relationship, but guys say she gives off a “wifey vibe” that makes the guys go away.

      This thinking is obviously upside down. My guess is that HSSS would very much like a relationship if she could get it, but is falling into the same addled way of thinking that many women do. She’ll play tough for now, go the hookup route, and see if she can become a gf through the back door. The problem with this plan is that even if she succeeds she winds up dating an asshole who would have rejected her if he knew her true nature.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Andre:

    You’re acting as if women value the same things you do–honesty, integrity, and a committment to be true to your own self-image.
    .They DON’T value those things.  They value alpha and that’s it.

    No. Someone posted a link here a while ago to an interesting article by Dennis Prager called “What do Women Want?” In it, he described three things that women of every background wanted in a man:

    And what is it that women most admire in a man? From decades of talking to women on the radio and, of course, from simply living life, I have concluded that an admirable man is one who has three qualities: strength, integrity and ambition.

    All three are needed. Strength without integrity is machismo. Integrity without strength or without ambition is a milquetoast. And ambition without integrity is a successful crook.

    Strength, integrity, and ambition. If you are lacking in one of these, you won’t and cannot be admired by a woman.
    .
    @hesaidshesaid:
    I don’t know how old you are or where you are in your college career, but I’ve found that in general it may be better to start dating outside of college if you want a relationship. At the very least, you’d have more options! I don’t know if you are new here, but just in case you may want to check out the other posts Susan has on this subject. I think you’ll soon find that the girls who are being sought after in this environment are getting a really raw deal.
    And don’t listen to Geoff about saving yourself for marriage. This is not an abstinence blog. Relationship sex is not detrimental like casual sex and there’s no reason for you to put out unless and until your own standards have been met.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @SayWhaat

      Strength, integrity, and ambition. If you are lacking in one of these, you won’t and cannot be admired by a woman.

      I agree with this. Unfortunately, many women do mate with men they cannot or do not admire. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. The view that women only want alpha is reductionist in the extreme. Some women only want alpha. Most of us want what you described, with enough self-confidence, i.e. social dominance thrown in to kindle the spark.

  • Geoff

    @SayWhaaat?
    You’re quoting Dennis Prager?  DENNIS PRAGER?  That guy married the first chick who would sleep with him.  You’re yanking my chain, right?
    ———
    “Relationship sex is not detrimental like casual sex…”
    You, madam, are hilarious.  Because if you tell a man who wants to marry you that YOU had 50 partners while you were in RELATIONSHIPS, but that slut Jennifer he used to date had sex with 4 guys just for sex…well, then he’ll choose you every time.
    .
    The hamster is a creation of Satan, I’m convinced.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      “Relationship sex is not detrimental like casual sex…”
      You, madam, are hilarious. Because if you tell a man who wants to marry you that YOU had 50 partners while you were in RELATIONSHIPS, but that slut Jennifer he used to date had sex with 4 guys just for sex…well, then he’ll choose you every time.

      That’s a ridiculous example. Geoff, just accept that you are in a distinct minority. You have some company on this board at the moment, with terre and Abbot joining in, but all of your validating of one another doesn’t make it true. There’s nothing wrong with saving oneself for marriage if that is your belief system. But as a strategy, it’s a bad idea to withhold sex in the context of a loving relationship, IMO. You can talk about the double standard all you want, but let’s face it – there’s a reason sluts want all women to be promiscuous – guys would then have no options. Today, a guy who wants a virgin has few options. There just aren’t many around. Most men have gotten over it and take a more realistic view. I’m not convinced that men don’t marry sluts, btw. I’ve seen them marry well. Perhaps they’ve lied about their history – I don’t know. But I suspect the reason men are so pissed off about the idea of women riding the carousel and then settling down with a nice guy provider is because so many women who try it succeed.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    Did anybody read what HSSS actually said? It sounds like people are just assuming that a young woman writing to HUS is automatically seeking LTR strategy advice.
     

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      It sounds like people are just assuming that a young woman writing to HUS is automatically seeking LTR strategy advice.

      Yes, it does seem that way. I think HSSS may be the first woman ever to write in the comments along these lines. I’ve gotten emails like this, and disabuse them of their impressions. People aren’t expecting it, so they turn it into something else.

  • Geoff

    @hesaidshesaid,
    Sorry, I thought you wanted to marry a nice man.  If you’re actually willing to give up all that for 10 years of riding the alpha carousel, I recommend you go to frat parties and:
    .
    1.  Wear tank tops with no bra underneath even during winter.
    .
    2.  Wear shorts that say SL on the left butt-cheek, and UT on the right butt-cheek.
    .
    3.  Wear high heels.
    .
    4.  Loudly proclaim every 5 minutes at the party that “I’m so horny, I could fuck two guys at once!”
    .
    See ladies, this option isn’t complicated.
     

  • SayWhaat

    @ Geoff:
    You keep conflating relationship sex with slut sex, and not only is that erroneous, but it is distorting one of the messages of this blog.
    .
    I don’t believe that what matters is the amount of sex a woman has, but the context within which she had it. If a girl has had 50 relationships, I would question why she didn’t think a single one of them would work out and kept moving on to the next one. If Jennifer has only had sex with 4 guys just for sex, well, if that’s what she wants and it doesn’t hurt her, then okay, that’s on her, provided her mentality doesn’t affect other parts of life. But neither of these women are exemplary.
    .
    For the record, I think it’s admirable that there are people who marry the first person they had sex with. I think they’re incredibly lucky. I myself have not yet had sex and if I meet a great guy who’s relationship and marriage material I would have no problem settling down with him, even if he’s the first and last one that I ever have.
    But not everyone gets lucky on the first go and I don’t think it’s right to say that they’re used up. I’m still waiting to hear a solid case from you on how non-virgin, non-sluts are ruined for marriage. Good luck.

  • SayWhaat

    “It sounds like people are just assuming that a young woman writing to HUS is automatically seeking LTR strategy advice.”
    Uh, no joke. I don’t know why we keep getting hit with all this “SAVE YOURSELF FOR MARRIAGE BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE” and “HAHA NVM IT IS TOO LATE STUPID AMERICAN GURLZ” bullshit. College-age students are NOT looking for marriage, people. We’re looking to develop relationship skills. 21 is still a little young to be thinking about marital commitments.
     

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @SayWhaat
      Geoff may be an exception, but in general, the men demanding virgin wives are also the ones who recommend expatriating. Fine, whatever floats your boat. I just don’t think it’s relevant to the contemporary American SMP. Which is what I am interested in. It’s completely off topic.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “and see if she can become a gf through the back door.”
    .
    Isn’t this what technical virginity is all about? :P

  • http://www.metapunk.org Andre

    @terre: LOL — I’ll let you know if I find one.  But as for how women are wired, I think it’s comforting to know that no two women are the same, so I’m sure there’s a few worthwhile ladies out there.
    .
    @Geoff: I appreciate the advice, but I think we must have different definitions of “alpha.”  When I think of alpha guys I think of aggressive douchebags; and I’d rather be a celibate monk than a douchebag.  But having said that, maybe there’s other types of alphas; and anyway, I agree about getting past rejection, and I certainly realize it’s important to understand how women think.
    .
    But I also know women are individuals, and they won’t all want the same things in a guy, or need to be tricked into liking me.  Either she will, or she won’t.  Either we’ll communicate well (what I meant by honesty), or not, etc.,  It’s not intended as a holier-than-thou thing; I’m not judging anybody else–I just know who I am and what I want and what I won’t put up with in a potential mate.  Maybe that’s just an alternative way of being assertive–my own kind of alpha, I guess.
    .
    @SayWhaat
    Thanks for that!  That article makes a lot of sense.  I guess I’m still learning how to be strong. I’d also add to the article that as a guy of course I want to be admired, but I also want to admire my lady.

  • Geoff

    For the record, I’m not DEMANDING that all women be virginal.  I’m just trying to get the hamster to stop spinning long enough for women to recognize that higher numbers SCREW YOU AS A WOMAN.
    .
    @ SayWhaat:
    “You keep conflating relationship sex with slut sex, and not only is that erroneous, but it is distorting one of the messages of this blog.”
    .
    I’m not conflating relationship sex with slut sex–they’re the same, as far as guys go.  THE NUMBER IS THE NUMBER IS THE NUMBER.  The ideal number is zero/virgin.  The worst number is 1,234.   Most of if not all of you women only want to talk about the number that’s “acceptable” on the left side of the scale and ignore discussion of the ideal.  Feel free, but that discussion allows you to ignore that EACH SEXUAL PARTNER YOU HAVE deflates your worth.  And men may or may not believe you when you tell them every sexual encounter was based on the highest ideals of romantic love. 
    .
    And I used the “50 romantic sexual interludes” versus “4 raw sexual hookups” to show the insanity of you women thinking it matters one whit to men what KIND of sex it was. Shocked that it failed to register <sarcasm off>.
    .
    Adding this cuz it’s just not soaking in:
    .
    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2010/12/women-who-get-around-while-unmarried.html

  • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

    @Badger

    Ha, I knew I wouldn’t get away with that. “Back door” is just too loaded an expression. And now I’ve just done it again. It’s a minefield around here.

  • AnonymousF

    @Susan

    “I just don’t think it’s relevant to the contemporary American SMP. Which is what I am interested in. It’s completely off topic.”

    To the extent that the goal of this blog is to help relationship-seeking (and ultimately marriage-seeking) women achieve their goal in the college and post-college SMPs, then the most useful input is going to come from American college/post-college women who’ve done so successfully themselves and from guys who formed LTR’s with/married such women. The second most useful input will come from secondhand observations about friends/acquaintances who fit the preceding description. As I see it, the rest is mostly static.  Just my two cents. I’m sure many of your commenters will differ.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @AnonF
      Agree completely. I would add that there is also value in examining what doesn’t work. The car wrecks, if you will. My new post is such an example.

  • hesaidshesaid

    @Badger
    yes thank you for clarifying that I DO WANT to hookup and that I dont want to find a guy to be in a LTR at this point in life.
    @Susan
    That being said, Susan you did hit it on the spot on your comment about me wanting to very much be in a relationship if i COULD get it, however unlike the other girls who are taking the “back door” approach to getting a bf by taking the hookup route for now I’m not so naive as them. I graduate next year, I’m very well aware of what is out there and I’d be stupid to think that I could turn a hookup into a bf(I’ve learned from my freshman and sophomore years that that doesn’t happen and I’ve smartened up and grew a pair of balls). There’s just not LTR material kind of guys out there right now, so I’ve learned to think like a guy, compartmentalize my emotions to the back burner while hooking up.
     
    All I wanted to know is how I could “hide” my gf/wifey vibes so guys didn’t run the other way. I’m not trying to be a slut, but as I’ve said a girl’s got needs.
     

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      I’ve learned to think like a guy, compartmentalize my emotions to the back burner while hooking up.

      As I said, please read The “Sex as Empowerment” Scam. This is not possible for most women. By which I mean women with anything but high levels of testosterone. You should also consider whether it’s such a good idea to run your number up. Just saying.

  • OffTheCuff

    <blockquote>My guess is that HSSS would very much like a relationship if she could get it, but is falling into the same addled way of thinking that many women do.</blockquote>
    I could sort of buy this reading if she said something like wishy-washy like “I’m willing to forego a relationship for a bit” but her words were “I don’t even want a relationship”. How much clearer can she get?
    So, what we have here is pretty darn typical: average nice girl hangs out with top-tier (20%!) frat boys with options, and wonder why they don’t ask her out. The solution is to start dressing hotter, give up the “nice girl” image, and give them what they want. This aligns with what she says she wants: sex and no relationship, and she’ll surely get it.
    Option B, which she isn’t asking for, would be to put herself into other situations (read: not frat parties) where slightly lower-status men will like her just as she is. I’m not saying go the D&D club and date losers — but there are plenty of men who are good-looking, respectable, and ambitious, but don’t have multiple drunken women throwing themselves at their feet. Call them greater betas if you will. That pool will only get smaller over time. If these men disgust her with their ugliness or boringness, then so be it. Go back to the frats and take your lumps.
    Geoff and other college women are going to say men like this don’t exist in college, which is BULL. That attitude is again just the top men with options. Geoff is a reformed player, so naturally, his social circle is going to seem like all men are douches. For women, it will seem that way, because those men are the ones they are most often approached by.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      there are plenty of men who are good-looking, respectable, and ambitious, but don’t have multiple drunken women throwing themselves at their feet. Call them greater betas if you will.

      Agree 100%. In fact, women pass over good-looking guys all the time and take one night with some ugly douche. Looks and dominance are not related in my experience. In fact, there are some guys who get moved on up the ladder to high status by virtue of their looks alone, when they’re really just gentle souls and not looking to manipulate anyone. Whenever you see a good looking guy in a relationship, you can bet it’s one of these guys. Even most frats have one or two – though some wind up faking douchebaggery after a while, which is just as bad as the real thing.

  • SayWhaat

    @ HSSS:
    “so I’ve learned to think like a guy, compartmentalize my emotions to the back burner while hooking up.”
    Good luck. Seriously, good luck with that. Many women before you have tried and failed and have nothing but regret to show for it.
    .
    “I’m not trying to be a slut, but as I’ve said a girl’s got needs.”
    It seems to me that you’re caving in not for your own needs, but for the short-term validation of having something going on with some guy so that life doesn’t seem so boring in the meantime.
    .
    I still think that if you hold out and open your options, you’d be in a better place to be in a relationship and fulfill your “needs”.
    Do what you want, but be aware and informed of the choices you are making. That’s all.
     
     

  • hesaidshesaid

    @Susan
    I agree compartmentalizing is not possible for women, and I’m not saying I have it down to a science as well as my gender counterparts do. Sex isn’t an empowerment thing for me, never really was. I got a player to fall for me. Most girls would find that a great feat but it honestly it didn’t faze me. This guy is now one of my best friends, but I refuse to get with him. Running up my number is the least of my worries..I’m a good girl who likes to be bad sometimes and to be that way I have to think with my head not my heart..something that most other college girls seem to confuse a lot.

  • OffTheCuff

     
    HSSS: “There’s just not LTR material kind of guys out there right now”.
    I disagree. There’s never going to be a larger pool of “LTR guys” than right now. These guys either already have girlfriends, or will find one very soon, and will want get married as soon as they get their life together. That usually means graduation, probably moving, and finding a stable job somewhere.
    The fact that you can’t find the “LTR guys” doesn’t mean they don’t exist. It could be you can’t see it due to your social circles, in which case changing your scene will help. Or, more likely, you are expecting that pool to somehow exist only within high-status men (apex fallacy).
    I think the amount of guys who want relationships but don’t have one, is significantly greater than the people who are players and don’t want relationships. As time goes on, these LTR guys will get married and will be out of the scene — they are gone for good. The pool gets smaller. There will be a certain amount of men who decide to stop playing and now be “LTR ready”, but they won’t replenish the pool faster than it’s being drained. When you’re 35 a single, you’ll realize how small that pool really is.

  • hesaidshesaid

    @offthecuff
    Yes maybe the pool of “LTR guys” is larger than we expect, but not by much. You fail to realize that the guys who already do have girlfriends either had them coming into college or if they got into the relationship starting in college they are not in those committed relationships for as much of the right reasons as you would think. I took a poll and asked my male friends why is it that some college guys are in relationships and some others aren’t and most of them answered that the ones that are in relationships are in them just to be in them because they’re getting cuddy on a regular basis or because they have a really hot gf
     

  • hesaidshesaid

    @offthecuff
    I forgot to mention that I do know that just because I can’t find “LTR guys” doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I know they exist, I’ve encountered them firsthand but I’m not with them for a long list of reasons which I don’t feel like getting into right now, but long story short we decided it’d be better off if we remained just friends. The social circles that I’m in has a great deal to do with the fact that I haven’t found LTR guys in the past…but that was the past. I’m not looking for LTR at this point, especially since I’ll be moving out of state for graduate school.

  • Lavazza

    HSSS: What you call “needs” are not at the bottom of the Maslow pyramid. Learn to distinguish between needs and desires and only aim to fulfill your needs (desires sometimes being met just being a happy coincidence), and you will have a wonderful life.
     
    If you are not interested in that advice, my secondary obvious advice for you, who are not looking for a LTR but maybe not wanting to rack up your number, is to see if you can make one of your past lovers into a FB.
     

  • Lavazza

    Appearantly sex is at the bottom of the Maslow pyramid, which is a bit weird. For me needs are defined by how long you can survive without meeting them.
     

  • OffTheCuff

    You say you both want an LTR (“you did hit it on the spot on your comment about me wanting to very much be in a relationship if i COULD get it”, but don’t (“I’m not looking for LTR at this point”). So which is it? Do you even know?

    I took a poll and asked my male friends why is it that some college guys are in relationships and some others aren’t and most of them answered that the ones that are in relationships are in them just to be in them because they’re getting cuddy on a regular basis or because they have a really hot gf.
    I suspect your poll has a sampling bias. Your male friends are men who want to sleep with you, which are the men you already hang out with, which are high-status men. You don’t have male friends from various walks of life.

  • Mike C

    @ hesaidshesaid
     
    I know I don’t intentionally try to send off the gf vibe..its subconscious–I don’t even want a relationship right now(frankly I’ve never committed myself to a real relationship cuz what I want is not out there right now so I don’t mind a hookup, a girl’s got needs) but is there anything I can do to not give off that ‘gf vibe’ in anyway besides dressing like a slut? I’ve had my fair share of hookups, but I’ve noticed that my past hookups took upto a week to actually “seal the deal” rather than happening that night or the next, as if they wanted to feel me out to get a sense of if I’m a freak or a good girl or not before they go for it. Any suggestions?


    OK…you seem pretty clear on what you want here.  You are CLEARLY SUBCOMMUNICATING to some of these guys that you are “sweet, good girl” material, and that perhaps you are looking for some emotional involvement.  So you need to negate these two.

    Yes, you need to dress more sexy/slutty.  As a guy, the #1 marker/signal I am going to look for to find a girl strictly for hook-up/sexual action is how she dresses.  If you want to NOT send out the “GF vibe” then dial it up.  Show a lot of cleavage.

    In your interactions, be excessively flirty, and don’t ask a lot of deep personal questions.  You want the guy to register that you are not interested in him at all as a person but that you see him as a “walking penis”.  You want to communicate your interest is physical, not personal.
    .
    You do this, and I’ll guarantee you’ll get attractive guys making the move to bang you that night or next.
    .
    Last thought is to be aware of the old proverb, “be careful what you wish for, you might just get it”.

  • hesaidshesaid

    @offthecuff
    I said it’d be nice if i COULD find it, sure I’d consider a relationship but I’m not scouting out guys at parties, in class, on the bus to be in a LTR especially as I’ve said I won’t be in undergrad for much longer and I plan to move so to answer your question NO i don’t want a LTR.
    I’m a floater, not all my friends are greeks, I have friends from all walks of life, social cliques, nationalites, etc. That being said, my poll is probably a little biased since I didn’t actually take a legit consensus and ask ALL my male friends. I’ll be sure to ask them all next time and get back to you.

  • Mike C

    I forgot to mention that I do know that just because I can’t find “LTR guys” doesn’t mean they don’t exist. I know they exist, I’ve encountered them firsthand but I’m not with them for a long list of reasons which I don’t feel like getting into right now, but long story short we decided it’d be better off if we remained just friends. The social circles that I’m in has a great deal to do with the fact that I haven’t found LTR guys in the past…but that was the past.
    ………
    We or you?
    .
    Ahhhh…..so much unsaid here in the above, buy crystal clear to anyone reading in between the lines who understands “the Game”.  The meme of many young women wanting to fuck attractive alphas and then later settle down with a beta provider type is aptly demonstrated in this one.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Ahhhh…..so much unsaid here in the above, buy crystal clear to anyone reading in between the lines who understands “the Game”. The meme of many young women wanting to fuck attractive alphas and then later settle down with a beta provider type is aptly demonstrated in this one.

      Along these lines, such a disturbing but predictable Modern Love column today in the New York Times:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/fashion/30Modern.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper

      This sums it up, but it’s worth a read:

      One cannot unthink such things, but I did my best. I loved my Tim. I adored his sense of humor and contentment. Still, there were things about the other Tim that were so alluring. Besides his good looks, he was worldly, well read and athletic. He came from a wealthy family, while my Tim, like me, came from a middle-class background…
      it’s hard to dispel the fantasy that there’s always someone better just around the corner.

      Yet by embracing this notion, I had allowed my life to become an ongoing cycle of shallow disappointments that left me longing for someone like my Tim Donohue, who could be satisfied with exactly what he had and who he was. Even more, I longed to be that kind of person again, too.

      The story as old as time.

  • hesaidshesaid

    @Mike C
    Thank you..always to the point with your responses.

  • Mike C

    I’m a good girl who likes to be bad sometimes and to be that way I have to think with my head not my heart.


    LOL, I’d bet a million dollars that ALL the “bad” girls think they are “good” girls who like to be bad sometimes.

  • Mike C

    @hesaidshsaid,
     
    BTW, not trying to pick on you with that last response, but I hope you do see at least partially the irony in that statement.
     
    You’ll also want to do your makeup a certain way.  You want to do it in a kind of “slutty” way.  My GF is a makeup artist so I have the luxury of having seen a thousand different looks in terms of mascara, eye shadow, eye liner, lipstick, lip gloss.  It really is amazing how a different makeup look can convey a different image.  You want to kind of mimic the pornstar makeup look but dialed down a few notches from there.
     
    Bottom line, you are trying to present a “sexual image”, just as if you went to a job interview you would want to present a professional image.

  • OffTheCuff

    HSSS: “There’s just no LTR material kind of guys out there right now” and “I know they exist, I’ve encountered them firsthand”.
    You are a walking pile of contradictions. But kudos for eventually being honest that you’re only interested in hookups. Keep working through these contradictions until you figure out what you really want.
    Mike, good advice. I never thought this blog would actually provide advice how to actually hookup with NSA, but, there’s a first for everything, huh?

  • hesaidshesaid

    LOL, I’d bet a million dollars that ALL the “bad” girls think they are “good” girls who like to be bad sometimes.
    lol wait are you directing that comment as me one of those “bad” girls who thinks i’m really a “good girl who likes to be bad sometimes”?..i promise you that’s not the case
    ..but if your just directing that as a general comment to the bad girl population out there then i’d say i have to agree with you on that one..perfect example is my friend. I love her to death but she’s a slut who think’s she’s a good girl lol

  • hesaidshesaid

    “You are a walking pile of contradictions…”
    lol yes it would appear so i guess…all i can say is i’m complicated

  • Mike C

    lol wait are you directing that comment as me one of those “bad” girls who thinks i’m really a “good girl who likes to be bad sometimes”?..i promise you that’s not the case
    ..but if your just directing that as a general comment to the bad girl population out there then i’d say i have to agree with you on that one..perfect example is my friend. I love her to death but she’s a slut who think’s she’s a good girl lol



    OK, I’ll bite.  Would you for my benefit CLEARLY DELINEATE THE LINE OF DEMARCATION between a “good girl” who likes to be bad sometimes like yourself versus a “slut” who thinks she is a good girl like your friend.  What SPECIFICALLY is the difference?

  • Mike C

    lol yes it would appear so i guess…all i can say is i’m complicated
    I remember an excellent Roissy post where he said the best answer to a lot of questions is “it’s complicated”.  A lot of women have Game naturally.

  • hesaidshesaid

    My definition of a good girl who likes to be bad sometimes has criteria who she wants to hookup with. Really the good girl who likes to be bad would like to slut around but has a reputation to uphold so she’s more choosey.
    My friend on the other hand, the slut will hookup with anyone and everyone, and then she wonders why she has a reputation as a slut and calls herself a good girl because she’s “nice”. I think naive is a more suitable word for her.

  • Mike C

    My definition of a good girl who likes to be bad sometimes has criteria who she wants to hookup with. Really the good girl who likes to be bad would like to slut around but has a reputation to uphold so she’s more choosey.My friend on the other hand, the slut will hookup with anyone and everyone, and then she wonders why she has a reputation as a slut and calls herself a good girl because she’s “nice”.


    Thank you.  Appreciate the response.  Just curious, when you say “choosier” about who to hook up with, what exactly do you mean?  I’m pretty sure I know the answer, but it might be instructive for those following along to hear exactly what criteria you use to be “choosy” about a potential hook-up.  Susan, I hope you are following this conversation. :)

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Susan, I hope you are following this conversation.

      Fear not, I’m on it.

  • Plain Jane

    @Terre,

    “(Dates themselves are also a peculiarly American phenomenon, as is alimony). ”

    —-
    Tell me how it works in your country.  I’ve been to many countries and the only ones that don’t do dating are the ones that do arranged marriages.  Even in those countries there are some teens and college students who sneak behind their parents’ backs to go on dates.
    I would imagine that countries without alimony are socialist or ruled by a religion that doesn’t do alimony as we know it here.

  • Geoff

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/fashion/30Modern.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
    .
    Great link Susan. The author is living the SATC lifestyle.  Sadly, I don’t think Mr. Big is going to show up when she’s 42.  Maybe she could get an apartment with Maureen Dowd and some cats.

  • Mike C

    Good link Susan, basically an inner look at that hypergamous desire.
     
    Ultimately, we are all human beings to some degree wrestling with and figthing againsts thousands of years of programming and instincts.  We’ll all make our choices on how we respond to that programming.
     
    Me personally, I try to avoid any type of situation that would present an opportunity for sexual variety.  You can’t make the wrong decision if you don’t tempt yourself.  The problem with many women as depicted in that article is they are constantly tempting themselves in their inner minds.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Me personally, I try to avoid any type of situation that would present an opportunity for sexual variety

      That’s a reflection of your commitment. I think some people constantly “just happen to find themselves” confronting those opportunities. She should not have had the beer with the other guy. She should have kept her distance from the start because she found him physically attractive. It was her job to give zero signs of interest. In failing to do that, she flirted with cheating, even though it doesn’t sound like the guy was even interested in her.

  • http://badgerhut.wordpress.com Badger

    “so I’ve learned to think like a guy, compartmentalize my emotions to the back burner while hooking up.”
    .
    I think you are extending/projecting the frat-guy mindset to all men. A segment of men can handle unbounded casual sex without emotional consequences. Cultural tropes aside most men probably can’t if we use the 80-20 division as a guide. Men have analogous hormonal systems to women that link sex with emotional bonding. What DOES tend to be true about men is that the emotional investment doesn’t have to be there BEFORE he chooses to have sex. So a woman shouldn’t view a man having sex with her as a sign he is emotionally invested.

  • hesaidshesaid

    my definition of “choosy” really changes from guy to guy/situation to situation..essentially looks plays an important role. He doesn’t necessarily have to be a 8-10, but definitely a 7. Cockiness is a big turn-on for me in a hookup. But not so cocky that he can’t fit his head through the door. A guy who own the room pretty much…looks like he knows what he’s doing and can actually do it

  • Plain Jane

    @ Someone, “so I’ve learned to think like a guy, compartmentalize my emotions to the back burner while hooking up.”
    *

    @ Badger’s reply, “I think you are extending/projecting the frat-guy mindset to all men. A segment of men can handle unbounded casual sex without emotional consequences. Cultural tropes aside most men probably can’t if we use the 80-20 division as a guide. Men have analogous hormonal systems to women that link sex with emotional bonding. What DOES tend to be true about men is that the emotional investment doesn’t have to be there BEFORE he chooses to have sex. So a woman shouldn’t view a man having sex with her as a sign he is emotionally invested.”
    ———
    Good points Badger and I agree!

    A person, male or female, who can pump and dump with impunity has not developed “empathy”.
    I’m not talking about being able to mutually walk away from a hook-up without falling in love with each other, I’m talking about cruel people who ENJOY kicking someone out of bed, like Roissy glorifies.
    With all this being said, there’s a theory that adopted and foster kids can do this, both male and female.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      With all this being said, there’s a theory that adopted and foster kids can do this, both male and female.

      That is ridiculous. Stop it.

  • Mike C

    my definition of “choosy” really changes from guy to guy/situation to situation..essentially looks plays an important role. He doesn’t necessarily have to be a 8-10, but definitely a 7. Cockiness is a big turn-on for me in a hookup. But not so cocky that he can’t fit his head through the door. A guy who own the room pretty much…looks like he knows what he’s doing and can actually do it


    Yup, looks + psychosocial dominance.  This reminds me of a Roissy post where he stated that promiscuous women are in fact typically “pretty choosy”.  I sort of knew that already from my days bouncing before I read it there.  I’ll tell ya, I learned so much just standing there for hours and hours observing social interaction, and then watching what happened at the end of the night.
    .
    Just curious, would you prefer a 7 who was confidently cocky and “owned the room”, or a 9 who was actually a bit reserved, and did not own the room.  I’m talking strictly hook-up here.

  • Geoff

    Waiting for Mike C to chortle with delight as the trap swings shut…

  • Mike C

    Waiting for Mike C to chortle with delight as the trap swings shut…


    LOL, I should have been a lawyer.  Of course, I think I’d be accused of leading the witness.

    All kidding aside, I do appreciate the honesty in the responses.  I’m just trying to demonstrate straight from the horses’ mouth so to speak that women, especially young women want, go for, and pursue exactly what most of the men who have studied this say.  There is still too much “no, thats not what we do” from most women.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      Waiting for Mike C to chortle with delight as the trap swings shut…

      LOL, I should have been a lawyer.

      Or a diplomat. This has been truly masterful.

  • Plain Jane

    “That is ridiculous. Stop it.”
    It’s not my theory, Susan.  Its RAD – reactive attachment disorder, which I don’t neccessarily agree with.  Just threw that it out there.  It has to do with people who were denied an attachment bond in their infancy or early childhood.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Plain Jane
      It’s true that some children in foster care, or those adopted say, from the Ukraine after years in an orphanage, cannot bond. But those are the worst cases, and terribly sad. Most adoptions are at birth, and carry no such risk. I also know people who take in foster babies, and give them enormous love and affection precisely so this does not happen.

  • hesaidshesaid

    @badger
    “I think you are extending/projecting the frat-guy mindset to all men. A segment of men can handle unbounded casual sex without emotional consequences.”
    To clarify I didn’t mean to project this mindset on all men. I know that like women, a good deal of men(80-20) do link emotion to sex. But to distinguish my point about women not being able to compartmentalize, I said I attempt to put my emotions on the back burner, whereas many women find this hard to do because they do allow their emotions to get involved and the majority of women DO ACTUALLY think that just because a man is having sex with her that that is a sign he is emotionally invested. As you have said, women shouldn’t make this assumption.
     

  • Geoff

    I, for one, applaud HSSS’s candor.  She seems like she’s not lying to herself about alphas falling into love with her after a hot sex session.
    .
    I am concerned she might not appreciate what that behavior will cost her long-term though, vis a vis her past being undesirable by a guy who wants marriage.

  • hesaidshesaid

    Just curious, would you prefer a 7 who was confidently cocky and “owned the room”, or a 9 who was actually a bit reserved, and did not own the room.  I’m talking strictly hook-up here.


    Definitely the 7 who is confidently cocky and owns the room…no competition against the 9 who’s reserved. Pretty boy 9 may be nice to look at, but may be an awful lay. If I’m gonna be choosy, might as well get my wait’s worth and go for the guy who’s gonna give me what I want in the bedroom(fingers crossed) and that’s the cocky 7.

  • Plain Jane

    “Definitely the 7 who is confidently cocky and owns the room…no competition against the 9 who’s reserved. Pretty boy 9 may be nice to look at, but may be an awful lay. If I’m gonna be choosy, might as well get my wait’s worth and go for the guy who’s gonna give me what I want in the bedroom(fingers crossed) and that’s the cocky 7.”
    —–

    LOL.  I’m the opposite.  I’ll take the pretty boy 9.  Awful lay?  Means you can TRAIN him to be the exact type of lover you want him to be.
    Inexperience is better than experience.
    The experienced think they don’t need to be told what you like.
    The inexperienced are eager learners!

  • Mike C

    Definitely the 7 who is confidently cocky and owns the room…no competition against the 9 who’s reserved. Pretty boy 9 may be nice to look at, but may be an awful lay. If I’m gonna be choosy, might as well get my wait’s worth and go for the guy who’s gonna give me what I want in the bedroom(fingers crossed) and that’s the cocky 7.


    Great.  Thank you.  Appreciate the responses.

    So to summarize, confirming what I already knew of course, women are absolutely correct when they say that personality trumps looks.  But that “personality” means very specific things…..”cocky”…..”owning the room”.

    FWIW, hesaidshesaid, I’m not sure there is a super high correlation between a good lay and an awful lay and “owning the room” and being “reserved”.  I know you women talk, so you know who is good and who is not.  If you are simply looking for good lays to “meet your needs” you should talk to other promiscuous girlfriends to find out which guys really delivered the goods, and then approach them at the next party.

    For the guys, it is actually to one’s benefit to be good even for casual hook-ups.  Word gets around, and you will have other promiscuous girls making their way to you.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      FWIW, hesaidshesaid, I’m not sure there is a super high correlation between a good lay and an awful lay and “owning the room” and being “reserved”.

      If anything, I believe the correlation is an inverse one. Nearly all cocky players are shit in bed. They couldn’t care less if you get yours. A good looking 9 who isn’t cocky is the closest you’ll get to perfection. A lovely package and an earnest disposition. No guy will ring all your bells the first time – but the good guy is far more likely to give it a try – and to hit paydirt soon enough. When you’re settling for cocky 7s, who rarely want a round 2, it’s bad sex after bad sex.
      .

      Youth is wasted on the young!

      GB Shaw

  • hesaidshesaid

    I’ll take the pretty boy 9.  Awful lay?  Means you can TRAIN him to be the exact type of lover you want him to be.Inexperience is better than experience.The experienced think they don’t need to be told what you like.The inexperienced are eager learners!
    I think you may be under the assumption that awful lay means they have no experience which definitely does not have to be the case. Just because Pretty boy 9 is who he is, he’s most likely an awful lay just because he rides on his looks to get him girls and not personality. I’m sure Pretty boy 9 has plenty of “experience” but he is under the false assumption that once he beds a girl all he needs to do is “show-up” and not put any work into it because he’s a 9 and he doesn’t have to try, whereas the 7 knows his place in the dating world and is competing against the 8-10s so he’s probably a better lay because he puts in more effort to beat out the 8-10s. Speaking from personal experience.

  • SayWhaat

    @ Mike C:
    “There is still too much “no, thats not what we do” from most women.”
    In my defense (and in defense of other girls like myself), I’m honestly really surprised at what HSSS is saying. I honestly did not think that girls who claimed to have “found out the hard way” what does not work in securing a boyfriend would just throw all caution to the wind this way.
     

  • SayWhaat

    @ HSSS:
    whereas the 7 knows his place in the dating world and is competing against the 8-10s so he’s probably a better lay because he puts in more effort to beat out the 8-10s. Speaking from personal experience
    You know what, HSSS, it’s clear from everything you’ve said here that you are most definitely not a “good girl”. I don’t care what “vibes” you give off. I have a promiscuous friend who is an intelligent and sweet-looking girl, and she can’t keep boys off of her. Bottom line: If you’re going to slut it up then don’t try to join my club.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      You know what, HSSS, it’s clear from everything you’ve said here that you are most definitely not a “good girl”. I don’t care what “vibes” you give off.

      I’m wondering if HSSS is a troll, there’s something about this that doesn’t ring true to me. She is basically trying to get us to believe that she wants desperately to hook up with a cocky frat star but can’t get his attention because she gives off a gf vibe. Since she does not aspire to be a gf, and can look around and see exactly how women score hookups, it makes no sense that she is hurting for hookups. Walk up to a cocky 7, put your finger through his belt loop, and say, “tonight is your lucky night.” Mission accomplished.

  • Plain Jane

    @ Mike C, “So to summarize, confirming what I already knew of course, women are absolutely correct when they say that personality trumps looks. ”

    For me they both matter.   If I’m not physically attracted to the looks of a guy, I can’t have romantic/sexual thoughts about him. 

  • Mike C

    I, for one, applaud HSSS’s candor.


    Me too.
     
    The thing I wonder, and I’ll admit I really have no clue here, is what is the percentage breakdown on young women like HSSS who really is just interested in sex with hot alpha types versus young women like SayWhaat who really strikes me as genuinely interested in a relationship with a good guy.
     
    The final piece of the puzzle here that we won’t get is it would be interesting to know an objective ranking of HSSS’s physical looks versus the types of guys she is clearly wanting to have sex with very quickly.
     
    All that said, she seems to clearly know what she wants so I don’t fault her for that at all.
     
    I am concerned she might not appreciate what that behavior will cost her long-term though, vis a vis her past being undesirable by a guy who wants marriage.


    Well…when that fork in the road arrives, I wonder if dishonestly will become the road taken.  I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM whatsover with a young woman fucking as many hot guys as opportunities present,  but I think it is morally unacceptable to lie about it at a future date.  If you have no problem with your past behavior, you should tell that “good guy to settle down with” , “hey, I wanted to enjoy my youth and fuck lots of hot guys, and had no interest in relationships” but you are the guy I want to “settle down” with.  If the guy can accept that, cool, but I think he is entitled to an honest odometer reading on the car he is buying.
     

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      If the guy can accept that, cool, but I think he is entitled to an honest odometer reading on the car he is buying.

      Well, HSSS said that her number is the least of her worries. I don’t know about her, but I think most women are prepared to lie about this. The woman who would not lie is probably the woman who would not have a high number. The impulsive woman who goes for hookups to feel hot is likely to say whatever it takes to hang on to a good prospect. I might be wrong about this – but it’s what my gut tells me.

  • Plain Jane

    “The thing I wonder, and I’ll admit I really have no clue here, is what is the percentage breakdown on young women like HSSS who really is just interested in sex with hot alpha types versus young women like SayWhaat who really strikes me as genuinely interested in a relationship with a good guy.”

    Maybe most women are between the 2.  Especially young ones in high school and college.
    When I was in the late teen-early 20s age group I was attracted to a number of guys and would have liked to date and get to know all of them.
    Women are not thinking about marriage in their late teens and early 20s.  We really aren’t.
    At the same time if we meet someone who we DO fall madly in love with – we are open to the possibility of a long term relationship.

  • Plain Jane

    @Geoff,
    Geoff says:
    January 30, 2011 at 4:37 pm
    For the record, I’m not DEMANDING that all women be virginal.  I’m just trying to get the hamster to stop spinning long enough for women to recognize that higher numbers SCREW YOU AS A WOMAN.
    .
    @ SayWhaat:
    “You keep conflating relationship sex with slut sex, and not only is that erroneous, but it is distorting one of the messages of this blog.”
    .
    I’m not conflating relationship sex with slut sex–they’re the same, as far as guys go.  THE NUMBER IS THE NUMBER IS THE NUMBER.  The ideal number is zero/virgin.  The worst number is 1,234.   Most of if not all of you women only want to talk about the number that’s “acceptable” on the left side of the scale and ignore discussion of the ideal.  Feel free, but that discussion allows you to ignore that EACH SEXUAL PARTNER YOU HAVE deflates your worth.  And men may or may not believe you when you tell them every sexual encounter was based on the highest ideals of romantic love. 
    .
    And I used the “50 romantic sexual interludes” versus “4 raw sexual hookups” to show the insanity of you women thinking it matters one whit to men what KIND of sex it was. Shocked that it failed to register <sarcasm off>.”
    —————————————————-

    Geoff, what is it about “relationship sex” that bothers you?

    .

  • Plain Jane

    1. “If the guy can accept that, cool, but I think he is entitled to an honest odometer reading on the car he is buying.”
    2. “Well, HSSS said that her number is the least of her worries. I don’t know about her, but I think most women are prepared to lie about this. The woman who would not lie is probably the woman who would not have a high number. The impulsive woman who goes for hookups to feel hot is likely to say whatever it takes to hang on to a good prospect. I might be wrong about this – but it’s what my gut tells me.”
    —————————————————-

    I’ve heard, read, seen in movies and heard from the mouths of a few men who cheated sexually on their partners, that “it was just sex.  it didn’t mean any thing.”  And expect their wives, fiances, girlfriends to “understand” that.

    So, if some sex can really “not mean anything” while some other forms of sex, such as with the partner that you love, CAN and DOES mean something – then why would a man (or woman) care about the PREVIOUS numbers of his or her current partner?

    Let’s face it – some sex doesn’t mean anything and some sex does.  It depends on whom your doing it with and what they mean to you.

    Finito!

  • hesaidshesaid

    “If anything, I believe the correlation is an inverse one. Nearly all cocky players are shit in bed. They couldn’t care less if you get yours.”
    I agree most cocky players really could care less if you get yours or not, but there’s a difference between a cocky 7 and a cocky 9.
    “I’m wondering if HSSS is a troll.”
    Lol I had a feeling you would say that Susan, and for the record I’m not a troll. I probably seem off to you most probably because as Plain Jane just said “maybe most women are between the 2″. I would definitely say I’m between the two extremes of just wanting a hookup and genuinely wanted a LTR. There’s a minority of us out there, but we’re out there. I’m not taking the hookup route and stringing it along to see if I eventually find a LTR out of a hookup as I’ve said in a previous comment. I am literally smack dab in the middle of the two extremes of just wanting to hookup and my past desire of finding a LTR.

  • Mike C

    @Susan
     
    I’m wondering if HSSS is a troll, there’s something about this that doesn’t ring true to me.


    Certainly possible, but there is another explanation to what you say below that makes sense in “girl logic”

    She is basically trying to get us to believe that she wants desperately to hook up with a cocky frat star but can’t get his attention because she gives off a gf vibe. Since she does not aspire to be a gf, and can look around and see exactly how women score hookups, it makes no sense that she is hurting for hookups. Walk up to a cocky 7, put your finger through his belt loop, and say, “tonight is your lucky night.” Mission accomplished.


    HSSS drew a distinction between herself and her friend of being a “good girl” who likes to be bad sometimes versus her friend who is a “slut”.  My experience and view is that most women have to maintain a plausible deniability about “slutty behavior”.  A good example would be the girl who told you that the sex with gay guys and anal sex “didn’t count”.

    In this case, the tactic you describe might register as “slut” behavior for someone like HSSS (assuming she isn’t a troll) whereas “it just happening” with a hot alpha type the same night or next where he takes the lead absolves her of being “slutty”.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      My experience and view is that most women have to maintain a plausible deniability about “slutty behavior”.

      Yes, this makes total sense. But such plausibility will require the hamster to run a marathon.

  • Mike C

    When I was in the late teen-early 20s age group I was attracted to a number of guys and would have liked to date and get to know all of them.


    I wasn’t talking about dating and getting to know a bunch of different guys.  I was specifically referring to rapid hook-up sex.  You seem to have difficulty sometimes understanding the point, and instead respond to whatever point you imagined was made.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      When I was in the late teen-early 20s age group I was attracted to a number of guys and would have liked to date and get to know all of them.

      I wasn’t talking about dating and getting to know a bunch of different guys. I was specifically referring to rapid hook-up sex. You seem to have difficulty sometimes understanding the point, and instead respond to whatever point you imagined was made.

      Agreed. Plain Jane, you are definitely getting manic and OT in the thread. It’s this kind of commenting that has had you in moderation in the past. You would do better to respond less frequently but more thoughtfully. And stick to the topic.

  • hesaidshesaid

    Thank you Mike C for once again nailing it right on the spot. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Just because my logic doesn’t make sense to you Susan doesn’t make me a troll. And ‘putting my finger through the belt loop of a cocky 7′ is not plain an simple as I’ve said since it’s not in my ‘good girl’ nature to do something like that..that seems like more slut behavior than anything.
     

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @HSSS

      And ‘putting my finger through the belt loop of a cocky 7′ is not plain an simple as I’ve said since it’s not in my ‘good girl’ nature to do something like that..that seems like more slut behavior than anything.

      I am having difficulty understanding your logic. A promiscuous woman (or slut) is someone who is not selective about her sexual partners. This does not mean selective in the sense that he is cocky, or handsome, a la Karen Owen and her lax buddies. It means selective in the sense that she chooses her partners in accordance with the belief that sex is never casual – it is always an extremely intimate act and represents access to a woman’s eggs, which are precious, biologically speaking. Men display, women select.
      .
      By this definition, you are prepared to be anything but selective. In fact, you are prepared to take risks with your health for …um, what was it again? You have needs? The need you refer to can be satisfied with your mechanical boyfriend. The need you do not admit to is the need to feel validated and popular with the hottest guys. That is the thing that sluts have in common. I don’t see how you’re any different.

  • Mike C

    I don’t know about her, but I think most women are prepared to lie about this. The woman who would not lie is probably the woman who would not have a high number. The impulsive woman who goes for hookups to feel hot is likely to say whatever it takes to hang on to a good prospect. I might be wrong about this – but it’s what my gut tells me.


    Well…unfortunately…I think your gut is right which really speaks to the bigger issue of character.  At that point, it really transcends the specificity of a sex partner number and rises to the idea that one person feels justified in lying to another person who is considering a lifetime commitment because they’ve decided the other person doesn’t have the right to make an informed decision.  Sex partner number, financial history, job history, etc.  If you declared bankruptcy, I would want to know.  Its my call to determine whether you’ve become fiscally responsible or not, not your call to determine which information is relevant and which is not.

  • Plain Jane

    “Sex partner number, financial history, job history, etc.  If you declared bankruptcy, I would want to know.  Its my call to determine whether you’ve become fiscally responsible or not,”

    Ah hah!  I KNEW men care about job and money!  Finally one who admits!

  • Mike C

    Thank you Mike C for once again nailing it right on the spot. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Just because my logic doesn’t make sense to you Susan doesn’t make me a troll. And ‘putting my finger through the belt loop of a cocky 7′ is not plain an simple as I’ve said since it’s not in my ‘good girl’ nature to do something like that..that seems like more slut behavior than anything.


    Hmmmmmm……consider me thrown for a loop here.  You may be right in your assertion Susan or we’ve just got one of the most candid, forthright commenters I’ve ever come across. There is something about the responses that are “too easy”.

  • hesaidshesaid

    There is something about the responses that are “too easy”.
    Explain “too easy”.

  • Mike C

    Ah hah!  I KNEW men care about job and money!  Finally one who admits!


    @Plain Jane,
    You are fast approaching the point where I can longer take you seriously.  Another female commenter here hit that point, and was relegated to me fucking around with her instead of serious replies.  I have little patience for the obtuse.

    Of course, men care about job and money…..FOR LTRs.  The point is your job, your money, your education, your credentials have little impact on your level of sexual attraction.  In contrast, male status which is tied to job, money, educational achievement does affect the attraction level a woman feels.  Take the exact same guy’s physical appearance and make him a doctor versus a French Fry maker at McDonalds and his sexual attractiveness changes.

  • Plain Jane

    Basically, HSSS is saying, if I’m correct from my own young womans’ point of view, is that she’s a “normal girl” in looks and demeanor, doesn’t dress slutty or wear clothes and makeup with the sole objective of attracting all the guys, and because of her young age and being in the middle of her education is not prepared to get married and set up house right now, but she has natural biological sexual drives and she would like to “hook up” with attractive guys from time to time in a natural, laid back way, without having to dance half naked on the top of a bar or lay on the bar and have guys do “shots” or whatever that is, off of her navel.

    Rather, see a guy, indicate interest to him, have him approach, talk, flirt, take a walk, enjoy each others company and then go back to his room or her’s for a makeout session, possibly more.  She wants the hookup to end on a civilized note.  No vows of eternal devotion expected but a mutual courtesy appreciated. 

    Right HSSS?

    If I’m right its because I’ve been there – I was a redblooded heterosexual early 20 something college student at one time too!

  • Mike C

    Explain “too easy”.


    OK, I’ll play along.  It is “too easy” because if I were a guy who wanted to demonstrate that the meme of alpha chasing cock carousel riding was accurate, I would have a commenter that has said exactly what you have said to a tee.  So you could be the creation of some guy and not really a college age woman.  I haven’t seen you comment before I think. This in particular:

    “And ‘putting my finger through the belt loop of a cocky 7′ is not plain an simple as I’ve said since it’s not in my ‘good girl’ nature to do something like that..that seems like more slut behavior than anything.”

  • Mike C

    but she has natural biological sexual drives and she would like to “hook up” with attractive guys from time to time in a natural, laid back way, without having to dance half naked on the top of a bar or lay on the bar and have guys do “shots” or whatever that is, off of her navel.
    Rather, see a guy, indicate interest to him, have him approach, talk, flirt, take a walk, enjoy each others company and then go back to his room or her’s for a makeout session, possibly more.  She wants the hookup to end on a civilized note. No vows of eternal devotion expected but a mutual courtesy appreciated.
    Right HSSS?
    If I’m right its because I’ve been there – I was a redblooded heterosexual early 20 something college student at one time too!
     
     
    ROTFLMAO.  This is just priceless stuff.  I mean seriously, you couldn’t ask for better material to demonstrate the hamster in overdrive.  “End the hook-up on a civilized note?”
     
     

  • Plain Jane

    Mike C, I won’t recommend reading Roissy but my comments about money matters (of course it does, duh) and ending on a civilized note is in response to the lies guys propagate on his site.  Susan gets some of his trickle down effect over here.
    Stop being obtuse.
    Nobody needs to be kicked out of bed after a hookup.  You can wake up together, have breakfast and say “ciao” with a smile.
    Its what adults do.
    My comments are not directed at you, they are directed at memes, which you are obviously not familiar with.

    And better you not familiarize yourself with them………

  • hesaidshesaid

    @Plain Jane
    YESS to all of it..finally someone who gets it! 3 years ago I was that naive freshman girl really thinking that just because a guy showed any interest in me he was emotionally invested. Of course that was clearly wrong. Guy after guy after guy I found that out as I’m sure MANYY girls have found that out. So naturally I closed myself off, built up a wall and then the next year I only told myself I’d get involved with guys that were potential LTR, but where did that lead me? Unsatisfied yet again because what I was looking for in a LTR I was not finding. Then again my philosophy changed…since I knew I couldn’t find myself a decent guy I stopped looking but I still as any sexual being was not meeting those physical needs by cutting myself off and putting up that wall. So what do I do? I go back to hooking up and found that that’s the best thing that worked for me. My wall is not completely down because I don’t like to mix my emotions with my hookups like I had in the past hence why I’m sure my guardedness comes off as that “gf vibe” that I’ve been told I give off. Is that honest enough for you? Is that response “too easy”? If it isn’t please let me know, I’d love to clarify any part of this you don’t understand. I don’t know how much clearer I can get.
     
    I’m not trying to be confrontational, I’m honestly, genuinely telling the truth.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @HSSS
      Please square this:

      3 years ago I was that naive freshman girl really thinking that just because a guy showed any interest in me he was emotionally invested. Of course that was clearly wrong. Guy after guy after guy I found that out….. I go back to hooking up and found that that’s the best thing that worked for me.

      with this:

      it’s not in my ‘good girl’ nature to do something like that..that seems like more slut behavior than anything.

      Any notion of “good girl” nature or behavior on your part is delusion. I’m curious how you define “slut” vs. “good girl.”

  • Plain Jane

    HSSS:
    “@Plain Jane
    YESS to all of it..finally someone who gets it! ”
    ————–

    I get it because I was there, not too long ago.  Also, I have to say, the United States is a peculiar place.  It’s not a “ancient and traditional culture” as you will find in Asia and Africa, but neither is it what I would refer to as “scientific and adultlike” as you will find in Northern Europe.
    Rather its this funny mix – and its attitude towards sexuality reflects that.
    Florence on another thread discussed the attitudes in much of Europe.
    The attitude expressed at Roissy’s and in the American “manosphere” cannot be found in Northern Europe.
    In Northern Europe they are not as uptight as Americans are regarding sex.  This may astound you since in “ancient and traditional cultures” America would be seen as a sexually indulgent Babylon.
    Northern Europeans approach sexuality in a simple, straightforward, scientific and adult way:
    It should be mutually desired, mutually respectful and safe.
    A Northern European guy is not going to kick you out of his bed rudely right after sex because he wants to always “keep one foot ahead in the ‘game'”.
    My god, we are adults here, there is no game. 
    You agree to sleep together, you use protection, and wake up and share a cup of coffee together.
    No one is “shamed” for that in Northern Europe.
    What’s the big deal here, I seriously don’t get it.
    Grown ass men in their 40s and beyond are on teh internets day and night calling grown ass women “sluts” while crying over not being able to “bang” them and even writing books called “BANG”.
    Seriously, Americans got some serious hang ups.
    If it weren’t so funny I’d be………… well it IS so funny.
    HSSS I would follow the advise to cast your net further to older men though, not too old, not 30, but maybe guys in their mid-late 20s who are out of college.  OR in college in a foreign exchange program.
    Try for Northern European men.
    They are, well, grown ups, even in their sexuality (a refreshing change!)

  • Mike C

    I go back to hooking up and found that that’s the best thing that worked for me. My wall is not completely down because I don’t like to mix my emotions with my hookups like I had in the past hence why I’m sure my guardedness comes off as that “gf vibe” that I’ve been told I give off. Is that honest enough for you? Is that response “too easy”? If it isn’t please let me know, I’d love to clarify any part of this you don’t understand. I don’t know how much clearer I can get.

    I’m not trying to be confrontational, I’m honestly, genuinely telling the truth.


    FWIW, you seem genuine to me.  Based on what you’ve said here, the problem is some of those hot alpha guys you want to meet your “sexual needs” don’t want emotional drama in their lives.  They are like that guy in a previous response by a different commenter who said “Dude, we fucked, now get on with life”.  The “gf vibe” you are sending is them reading the potential that you might be the type to get emotionally attached.

    If you really just want NSA sex with these guys you need to change the vibe you are subcommunicating in your interactions.  My sense is you are ambivalent about what it is you really want, and that comes across.

  • terre

    Plain Jane, what the hell are you talking about? I’m assuming by “Northern Europe”, you mean Sweden (most lib women don’t know anything about Europe aside from Sweden)? Because Swedes have to run game all the time. It’s a total nightmare.

  • Lavazza

    Plain Jane: I am a Swedish male. Are you telling me that you are also a Swedish male? Anyway I do not agree with your description. Appearantly there is much more of a FB culture going on now than when I grew (then it was either ONSs or exclusive relations). But most of the time one of the parties is fooling themselves about the situation.
     
    All I read in the Anglo manosphere I also find in Sweden, apart from the fact that more Americans are religious and divorces are even worse in America than in Sweden.
     
    This is the relations and the sex pages of the biggest Swedish Internet forum:
     
    https://www.flashback.org/f181
     
    https://www.flashback.org/f22
     
    Google translate to see if you can find somebody describing the NE situation like you. Or better become a member and write a post asking if you have understood the NE situation correctly. You are allowed to use Swedish, English, Danish and Norwegian on the site.
     

  • OffTheCuff

    I’m giving up on HSSS as she continues talks in circles. If she wants a “hook-up lite” as PJ suggests, all you have to do is find non-alpha guy who’s not swimming in women, and talk to him. Give him a blindingly obvious kino like touching his hair, or touching his leg, and even idiots like me at 19 will take the hint, gladly make out, and not pressure for sex the first date. But, you know, we’re invisible at that age. I’m tired of repeating myself.
    I have a love/hate realtionship with this blog now. Every new post, I cheer how Susan really gets it, and how her ideas will make a lot of people happier. Heck, I’m pro-relationship, pro-marriage, all that stuff. We’re on the same page.
    Then, the female comments start, and I realize we’re tilting at windmills.
    I read Roissy, and few women comment there. It’s very easy to read CR and think “well, women really aren’t like that”. Surely, some women are honest and getting hurt out there.
    Then I come here, with the actual intent of building empathy for women who really are wronged by the dating scene. I’ve given up on them showing empathy for average guys — it’s clear they wont, but, surely I can be the better person and try to understand them. So I read.
    Then women like HSSS or PJ or Jennifer’s Body or Casey post. At first, their predicament seems plausible, and I try to give the benefit of the doubt. However, the more comments they make, the more inconsistencies come out in their story, and the more their behavior falls precisely in line with Roissy’s explanations of how women operate.
    Nearly every new comment is a new feather in Roissy’s cap. I wish it weren’t the case.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @OTC
      Well, you can imagine how I feel. However, there are plenty of earnest women who have commented and come here too – and several have asked for and appreciated advice from both other women and men. In this thread there are smart women who get it.
      .
      However, you are right – Roissy is right – about female nature. Just as guys who comment at Roissy are probably not the ones who are (or were, back in the day) happy in this SMP, we get people here commenting who are either intellectually curious or unhappy, or both. Women often don’t understand why they feel attracted to the men they do – and for the most part they are oblivious to the alpha/beta divide. Part of what I do is try and educate.
      .
      I remain skeptical of HSSS – it’s still not computing for me. There’s something off there. Don’t know if we’ll learn more. As for Plain Jane, she is Jennifer’s Body, and before that Polyamorous Desi. She’s had other names as well. I recently took her out of moderation b/c she had been commenting responsibly (relatively), but now she’s off the rails again.
      .
      FWIW, I appreciate you as a reader or commenter. If you find these women annoying, I would recommend not engaging them. It’s always clear who is in a position to be influenced, and who is not. (Another reason I don’t trust HSSS – she really isn’t looking for any advice. I wonder what motivated her to comment.)

  • Mike C

    I’m giving up on HSSS as she continues talks in circles. If she wants a “hook-up lite” as PJ suggests, all you have to do is find non-alpha guy who’s not swimming in women, and talk to him. Give him a blindingly obvious kino like touching his hair, or touching his leg, and even idiots like me at 19 will take the hint, gladly make out, and not pressure for sex the first date.
    .
    But that guy wouldn’t be hot.  HSSS doesn’t want to “slutty” like her friend who hooks up with just about anybody.  She wants to be “choosy” about who she hooks up with.  Remember, HSSS specifically stated she is looking for 7s and above in physical attractiveness who “own the room”.  The non-alpha guy who is not swimming in women does NOT fit the bill for hook-up/rapid sex material.  That guy is for later on down the road.  BTW, check out Solomon’s post today on the economics of the meat market.  Hilariously, spot on.
    .
    Then I come here, with the actual intent of building empathy for women who really are wronged by the dating scene. I’ve given up on them showing empathy for average guys — it’s clear they wont, but, surely I can be the better person and try to understand them. So I read.
    Then women like HSSS or PJ or Jennifer’s Body or Casey post. At first, their predicament seems plausible, and I try to give the benefit of the doubt. However, the more comments they make, the more inconsistencies come out in their story, and the more their behavior falls <em>precisely</em> in line with Roissy’s explanations of how women operate.
    Nearly every new comment is a new feather in Roissy’s cap. I wish it weren’t the case.

    .
    The world is a funny place.  I’ve found one of the keys to not driving yourself crazy is to accept the reality of the things you cannot change.  FWIW, there is stuff occurring at the top levels of the intersection of government/economy/finance that are a level of corruption and malignancy that makes the SMP situation look absolutely benign.  Anyways, I find the discussion interesting, but you’ve got to be careful I think not to get too close to the abyss.  I think that is what happened to Roissy.

  • terre

    I always wonder (and I’ve done this since I was young, it’s never sat right with me) what someone like hesaidshesaid means by “LTR”. Exactly how “long term” are these relationships if she can discuss them like they’re some kind of common currency?

  • Geoff

    @Plain Jane,
    “Geoff, what is it about “relationship sex” that bothers you?”
    ———-
    G-Did I say it bothered me? It doesn’t bother me. I said guys don’t care what KIND of sex you have (relationship or just raw sex). In fact, to make it easy on you, I wrote “THE NUMBER IS THE NUMBER IS THE NUMBER” regarding number of sex partners. You’re ignoring my argument in order to make some lame point about how I hate relationship sex.
    .
    If you disagree with me and think guys DO care whether your number of sex partners was based on relationships or just raw sex, then feel free to make an argument.
    .
    I’m with Mike C. I also have little patience for the obtuse. Particularly when it’s deliberate.

  • OffTheCuff

    A promiscuous woman (or slut) is someone who is not selective about her sexual partners. This does not mean selective in the sense that he is cocky, or handsome, a la Karen Owen and her lax buddies. It means selective in the sense that she chooses her partners in accordance with the belief that sex is never casual.

    .
    While I agree with this greatly, but I’ve never known a woman to actually to use this interpretation when applied to their own sex life. At least none of the posters here.
    .
    That’s why I avoid the phrase “not selective”, and go purely with numbers significantly above the median partner count. No woman has to ever sleep with a man she doesn’t find attractive, therefore she is always “selective” in her mind. Presto, a little bit of rationalization, and she’s not a slut no matter how many men she sleeps with.
    .
    Men, however, are not so easily fooled.
    .
    I know a woman who slept with 30 men before she left high school. She proclaimed she was “not a slut” — and I didn’t even suggest she was. The fact that she brought it up unasked shows me how heavily it weighs on her mind. I know better than try to convince her otherwise, not gonna happen. Instead, I smile, nod, and let her think that I agree. Sure, honey, you’re not a slut. Whatever you say.
    .
    Interestingly, while no woman will never admit to being a slut, she will gladly tell us she knows someone who is. How can this be? Everyone knows one, but nobody is one? The discriminating factor is never numbers, instead, we heard “well, SHE has no standards… not me” and “SHE will sleep with anyone, anytime… not me!”
    .
    That can’t be literally true. No woman takes all offers, otherwise she’d be in bed with 80-year old men having sex 24 hours a day. Everyone has standards. A more realistic explanation is that her friend’s standards are just lower than hers– maybe a little, maybe a lot. The problem with this relative logic is that, if you think your friend is a slut… then one of your friends thinks YOU are. And so the circle of delusion widens.

  • FEEDmeBEEForELSE

    Susan,
    What ever came of your inquiry into whether the attractive women you know are approached by random guys?
    I think it is also worth finding out what type of guys approach them and how.
    It’ll probably end up being clear evidence on what not to do.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      @Feed Me Beef

      What ever came of your inquiry into whether the attractive women you know are approached by random guys?

      Were you the one who asked about that under a different name? Here’s the thing about my “girls” – there are two groups, each about a dozen young women, all college or just out of college age. I usually see them separately, and usually at my home for brunch or dinner or something. For that reason, the college kids generally come around when they’re home. One of my crews is women from BU, but most of them just graduated and are working now – not all in Boston. In other words, I see them, we laugh and talk and they tell stories and I pick their brains and they pick mine. So I’ll get some feedback at the earliest opportunity, but I generally have to work around their schedules. I’ve made a note of it, though.

  • OffTheCuff

    Sue, thanks for clearing this up, I had no idea PJ was morphing handles. I’ll give it the college try when a new person shows up, and then give up, maybe a bit later than I should. I just never made the connection. Apologies if the post looked too cynical – since I’m still fairly new here, I don’t know if your message are getting any positive reception at all. Believe me, I thought I *had* stopped interacting with Jennifer’s Body.

    • http://www.hookingupsmart.com Susan Walsh

      since I’m still fairly new here, I don’t know if your message are getting any positive reception at all.

      Honestly, I feel very gratified. I know that many young women read without commenting, and they do provide a lot of feedback about specific posts. I guess my goal is to foster discussion and influence the debate. Many young women are not interested in the message, others come looking for validation for their choices. I don’t presume to believe that I can make any real, observable changes in the SMP. My hope is to provide some individuals with the information and perspective they need to make a good choice that they will not regret.
      .
      It’s interesting – when I started talking to young women, I was surprised they took me seriously due to my age. They called me “Aunt Sue” and wanted to hear all my opinions about their stories, and to tell them mine. Then when I began blogging – again, I figured being a middle-aged woman would hamper my ability to talk with young people. I have found the opposite to be true – I think young people miss the wisdom that family elders imparted in past generations.

  • Plain Jane

    Geoff, ”“Geoff, what is it about “relationship sex” that bothers you?”
    ———-
    G-Did I say it bothered me? It doesn’t bother me. I said guys don’t care what KIND of sex you have (relationship or just raw sex). In fact, to make it easy on you, I wrote “THE NUMBER IS THE NUMBER IS THE NUMBER” regarding number of sex partners.
    ************
    Geoff, and again, you’ve stated that any number at all, even 1 or 2 is bound to upset you or get your hamster wheel in the heady thingy going, whatever terminology is used to by y’all to mean, “mentally distubed by”.
    So if a 26 year old woman only had 2 boyfriend her entire life and had sex with them, that’s the same to you as if she had 2 one night stands in a bar bathroom – because the number is the number is the number, spin the wheel, spin, spin, spin .

    Like I said, this is the mentality of a religious fanatic and NOT your average, secular American.
    ———————
    Everyone who says, “Roissy is right about women”.
    Is he also right about Black men?
    Is he also right about White women who date Black men?
    Because he has written some pretty un-politicallyl correct blogs and comments about them too.
    If so many are willing to give him “credit”  on gender issues in general, will the same people give him “benefit of the doubt” on his racial ideas as well?
    Where does it end?

  • Geoff

    @Plain Jane,
    I made the argument that men care about your number, and aren’t interested in how you got that number.  I didn’t say anything about religion, nor did I quote any Bible verses, nor did I say you HAVE TO BE A VIRGIN to be valuable.  I said the lower the number, the better.
    .
    Your counter-argument is that I am a religious fanatic, and that the average, secular American DOES care that you spread your legs for the best reasons possible–love.  I don’t claim that men care because of religion.  I say they care because they know that women with high numbers are a risk.
    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2010/12/women-who-get-around-while-unmarried.html
    .
    So, question to the men here–if a woman has had 2 sexual partners, do you care if they were relationship-based or sex based?  I submit you don’t care about the why.
    If a woman has had 22 sex partners, do you care if they were relationship-based or sex based?  I submit you don’t see a difference. I submit you don’t care about the why.
    If a woman has had 222 sex partners, do you care if they were relationship-based or sex based?  I submit you don’t see a difference. I submit you don’t care about the why.
     
     

  • Plain Jane

    “women with high numbers are a risk.”
    As are men.
    However, your opinion of how someone got their numbers not making a difference is just that – YOUR opinion.
    A man with a low number – say 3 partners – who has gotten 3 partners in unprotected sex with prostitutes is much more of a risk than a man who has gotten 3 partners within committed relationships using protection.
    Same with women.
    Unless you don’t consider STDs a “risk”.

  • Lurky Lu

    @Mike C “The thing I wonder, and I’ll admit I really have no clue here, is what is the percentage breakdown on young women like HSSS who really is just interested in sex with hot alpha types versus young women like SayWhaat who really strikes me as genuinely interested in a relationship with a good guy.”

    A good part of that answer can be found at Audacious Epigone’s blog.  Here’s what he found:

    “The GSS allows for approximating the cohort his loose girls are part of. Following is the distribution of sexual partners since 18 for women ages 30-35 (N = 680). Only responses from 2000 to 2008 are included. These women were in their primes during the nineties and the earlier part of this decade:

    Partners
     

    0
    3.4%

    1
    23.8%

    2
    15.8%

    3
    10.5%

    4
    6.9%

    5
    9.5%

    6-10
    19.6%

    11+
    10.5%

    One in ten have had more than ten partners, an average of one new fling per year. Fewer than 1 in 100 report having at least fifty. Nearly a quarter have stuck with the same man for more than a decade, and more than two-thirds have had five or fewer partners in their entire lives. Some respondents may be underreporting, but the idea that a significant number of women are having sex with a different man every three months is not supportable.”

    Even if you use a conservative yardstick of “a count of partners on no more than one hand”, you’ve got maybe 30% of women who could be considered promiscious — most of whom, under 10 partners, aren’t even that bad — and that’s without eliminating variables such as race, education and income.  Yet, look at how this thread has deteriorated in another “find-the-slut” fest.  And that seems to be the way it is in the manosphere — a certain coterie of guys obsessed with female promisciuty, despite the numerical evidence showing that most women really aren’t “like that”.  What’s up with that? 

  • Lurky Lu

    I just caught this post from Frankie, a way back:

    “Please do not assume all picky men and women really want (or should want) to marry at all costs. Many come to the conclusion that living alone is more rewarding than lowering their standards, depending on how far they would have to lower them. The same process applies equally to both sexes…I am a 47 year old man, Never married. Never been in love. Not gay. Short and butt ugly. Good career I enjoy. I could never interest any decent looking women. Only women as unattractive as me would ever have anything to do with me datewise. I spent over fifteen years being frustrated. I’m glad that period of my life, at least regarding the romantic side, is long past me. I have no intention of marrying and living with a woman of similar attractiveness. ….I have never felt “entitled” to a woman better looking than me. I have never felt a victim of anything. I am happy being single and comfortable with my situation. I have so many other things to be thankful for in my life. I have built a happy life around this because I knew from an early age (at mid 20s) that I would likely be a lifelong bachelor.
    This problem only becomes a real problem when someone feels cheated because of their situation and the choices they make as a result and then they let that frustration ruin other parts of their life. It’s ok not to settle, but it is not ok to blame someone else, or the system, for the consequences of your choices.
    If I felt bitter about being alone (alone I am, but almost never lonely), then my only moral option would be to lower my standards (in my case, really lower them) in order to end my bachelorhood, and force myself to like it. So far, I am anything but bitter about this.”

    Hats off to Frankie, for his honesty and willingness to own responsibility for himself.  If only this was typical in the manosphere (but then again, there’d probably be no manosphere to speak of!).

  • somerandomguy

    I hate how Plain Jane comes on here just to rationalize behavior that men naturally find despicable. What’s also annoying is your bizarre attitude that discussing simple facts about preferences will reveal some secret inferiority about femininity that must be shielded at all costs. Men like virgins because they are a reproductive guarantee there’s no changing that. Some girl can come up to me and say “men don’t like virgins, they only like the power dominance that comes with psychologically manipulating a naive young woman, and I’m just as valuable!” But it only tells me that they are insecure about the topic.
    It also doesn’t mean experienced girls can’t sell themselves in other ways. However there are deep evolutionary mechanisms in human beings that assist in monitoring human status. Fit parentage is one of them.
    Evaluating a female’s previous history naturally triggers a male’s suspicions and defense mechanisms from making a poor investment. A woman with multiple partners not only carries the whiff of a bad parent, but also from a biological perspective she was likely to already have had a child. Generally the highest investment in a baby comes with the woman’s 1st child and subsequent children come from a mother whose body has been taxed by a previous pregnancy. Although nowadays it might not matter as much with the availability of vitamins, in the past women died in childbirth all the time and the ghosts of those tragedies linger in our instinctual behavior. A withered womb was just another step closer to deformities, disease and death.
    Secondly, and we all see this, sluts are taxed immunologically on a much higher basis than men simply because the fluids, and toxins, they accept sit in a woman’s womb. (and nostrils… in some of the better videos) This is why porn stars always complain that half their earnings go to medical bills.
    A guy with a ton of partners, well, just feels good about himself!
    So when you Jane say “men with high numbers are a risk” it comes off as trivial, out-of-left field and ridiculous (STDs? we’re talking about parentage) because ultimately women judge high numbered men positively! You’re just grasping at straws like you always do. You can’t seem to accept that men know the realities of the dating playbook and females like you simply exist to justify your pursuit of alphas and maintain your safety net of betas with hokum arguments.
    The STD argument is a cop out because the consequences of receiving an STD are often less profound than being forced to raise another man’s baby, or having wife and child die during birth. An alpha having HIV – the modern day syphilis – is still not a deterrent for many women. Women still have sex with STD laden men anyway provided they are high status enough for their tastes. That is how desirable it is to be considered alpha. And why it conjures so much jealousy in those who aren’t. I’m sure Brad Pitt at least has a case of the herp sores but knowing that won’t deter you. Hell even Magic Johnson impregnated his wife two months before his announcement!
    The only real risk to a man’s reproductive capability is relationship based, where ex-lovers may get jealous of the new lady. But if you use that as your counter-argument I’ll laugh my head off all day!
    What you can’t seem to accept is that a womb is a RESPONSIBILITY. With that responsibility comes consequences unique to its utility. It is the centerpiece conduit of the entire community which is why men and women know to look for reproductive cues regarding its health. So when you excuse a girl who’s had 50,000 sex partners, but all in committed, 5 minute relationships as not carrying the elements of tawdriness, you come off as a baby that simply redefines what you want people to believe as it suits you. If you were to come up to me and tell me that the moon in the sky was really the sun, and that it was not midnight but really the afternoon, all because you didn’t want people to think you were up past your curfew I would say you were a fringe lunatic grasping at the most ludicrous of straws as a way to shield your ego.
    Rational people have instincts for a purpose. Kind of like when you go to a restaurant and find spaghetti stains on the table cloth, people notice signals of a bad experience in the making.
    You’re mad that society’s tenants, created by men, say that a de-virginized girl is less valuable than a virgin one so we should change it even though it is counter to men’s tastes. You can’t change a market demand by lowering the price of a premium item, you merely make that item more scarce. Additionally would virgin females appreciate your tinkering? Because you are essentially arguing to de-value them. The way you talk makes it sound like you’re trying to convince people liver spots are pretty.
    A high partner count in a woman is like a man who is going bald. Only when they attempt to cover it up do they look pathetic and desperate. If they embrace it then that’s another story. So take a hint Jane.
     

  • Geoff

    @somerandomguy,
    If you don’t want to encourage a troll, don’t talk to the voice under the bridge.

  • Plain Jane

    @Somerandomguy, your comment directed at me was too long and verbose for me to read but I did skim it and this stuck out;
    “Secondly, and we all see this, sluts are taxed immunologically on a much higher basis than men simply because the fluids, and toxins, they accept sit in a woman’s womb.”
    —–
    Throughout the entire Asia you will find the concept of men loosing semen being detrimental to their physical and mental health.
    Saving semen = retaining vigor and mental clarity.
    OM SHANTI

  • Tom

    LOL @fluids and toxins…….what are condoms for?

    Not all numbers are created equally….
    Two women have the same number example……25

    One woman is 35 and the other is 21
    Both became sexually active at 20.
    The older woman has averaged one lover every 210 days
    The younger woman has averaged a new lover every 15 days
    Who thinks these women have the same mentality?

    Sorry I dont buy a number is a number is a number

  • Doc

    I’m with Susan – HSSS is a troll running a spoof. The writing is direct, concise, and analytical. It’s starkly factual yet virtually devoid of emotive language. The writer is, I suspect, a male with a keen understanding of game theory, and not a female college junior trying to solve a ‘slut’ appearances problem.

  • terre

    Who even cares if promiscuous men are “also” a high risk? What difference does it make? It isn’t men selecting for them. It’s women. Women are not bothered by male promiscuity when it comes to deciding whether to sleep with a man or not. They’re often bothered when they realize they’ve been used, but by then the deed is done. From the male perspective, male promiscuity is even a desirable quality, because women are generally attracted to it. All the griping in the world about “manwhores” won’t change that fact (if anything, it’ll aggrandize it).

  • driftwood

    There are more single men than single women in their early thirties (which is the demographic spoken of in this blog entry) so women have nothing to complain about in that regard. There is no shortage of eligible bachelors. If reality, there is a shortage of eligible bachelorettes.

  • Pingback: The Eligible Bachelor Paradox – Why Weak Bidders Win « Deltaself